I (hope I) wasn't suggesting that ComDev was going to recommend moderation for ASF-wide adoption. Remember, the ASF is here to serve the projects, not the other way around...
I was trying to say that ComDev should have a recommended procedure in the very rare cases, yes it is incredibly rare, that moderation is required. // Niclas On Fri, Jul 19, 2019, 19:22 Myrle Krantz <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 2:52 AM Niclas Hedhman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Well, this is kind of ComDev stuff, but anyhow... > > > > I am not particularly fond of the "Comment can reasonably be expected to > > provoke an angry response", because it is incredibly subjective, as well > as > > impossible to predict future. > > Possibly change that bullet point to "Comment is using too much emotional > > language and can easily be misunderstood". Similar tuning in others, but > > not important at this point. > > > > I was a bit skeptical, but I tried it out in the text, and I do agree that > it's an improvement. Thank you for the suggestion Niclas! > > > > Instead, I think moderation should not have any different standards than > > the reason for being put on moderation in the first place. > > > I agree, but I don't see that as my call. Within this committee, Gris is > VP, and I'd like her to make this decision. > > > > Which means that > > we should delegate back to ComDev's guidelines[1][2], and if they are not > > adequate then patch it there. > > > > I partly disagree here. I am not trying to create guidelines that work for > everyone, I'm trying to create guidelines that work for us. If another > nonpmc or committee decides they want to try out moderation, we can offer > what we have and then start thinking about finding the commonalities and > bringing them back to comdev. But I don't want to start with trying to > solve this problem for 65,000 contributors, when I still lack confidence > that we have it right here. > > Just as an example: I think the standard on board@ should be different > than > the standard on *@diversity, and should be different than the standard on > the various project dev lists. There should be commonalities (and those > commonalities *do* belong at comdev), but the topics on these lists are > different, the subscriber counts are different. The degree to which people > chose to be there or are forced to be there is different. These all play a > role in what expectations are reasonable. > > However, Yes, I have been intending to mine the ASF CoC for moderation > messages. Especially section 5 contains a list of things that are somewhat > more objective and easier to explain. > > One bit that I think is missing; > > * "Try to avoid using emotionally loaded language, avoid assigning fault > > and avoid absolute stipulations" > > > > Yes, I believe the "emotionally loaded language" part of that is covered in > your above suggestion which I've adopted. But the latter part ("assigning > fault", "absolute stipulations") is not something I want to try to judge as > a moderator. I'm worried that I'll miss some, and get tangled in picking > sides if I try to take that on. That really will need to go over to the > level of social moderation and even off-list coaching (another solution > that I'd like to see us use more heavily; people react much more > constructively to criticism when it is not in front of an audience) > > > > Of course, examples would help greatly. > > > > So, I would like to suggest that > > a) In the Netiquette guidelines it may be good to have "If the > netiquette > > rules not followed, you might be put on moderation after N warnings. This > > moderation is limited to X days. Each community within ASF defines N and > > X." > > > > b) Moderation guidelines should also be in ComDev, as a resource for > > other projects/lists. The above list is a starting point there. > > > > c) VP D&I should then set the X and N for these lists, but the higher > > those numbers are, the more backlash can be expected. maybe 30 and 2 are > > reasonable... > > > > d) After X days, moderators should evaluate if the person has improved > > the behavior, and if extension is required, need to point to the posts > that > > were rejected and not improved upon successfully, and I suggest that > > decision is posted on private@ > > > > I have no objections to you taking this to ComDev Niclas, but I'm not > convinced yet that making moderation into a ComDev recommendation is the > right approach. Perhaps you can convince me there. : o) My goal with this > draft is not to create a new set of standards, it's to define a response to > violations of a subset of the standards that we have. That means: > > * picking the subset of that standard that we want to handle in technical > moderation. > * defining the response that email recipients will receive. > > Best Regards, > Myrle > > [1] http://community.apache.org/contributors/etiquette > > [2] http://www.apache.org/dev/contrib-email-tips > > > <troll>By the way: is that recommendation on HTML still up-to-date? (vi! > emacs!) </troll> <ducks/> >
