You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@diversity.apache.org by Myrle Krantz <my...@apache.org> on 2019/07/18 19:05:41 UTC
Moderation guidelines
Hey all,
We've started a discussion on the first draft of some moderation guidelines
on private@diversity, and after a couple of short rounds, we decided it
would be more appropriate to discuss here on the public list.
The document in question is already public here:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/EDI/Draft+moderation+guidelines
This is a very early draft, that has mostly been the results of
improvisational moderating. Your feedback is quite welcome.
Anyone who's already made comments on the private list is welcome to move
them here. I'm going to skip it with mine for a little bit, not because I
feel the need to hide them, but because I'm quite tired, and I need to get
some other stuff done.
: o),
Myrle
Re: Moderation guidelines
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 2:52 AM Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org> wrote:
> ...I think moderation should not have any different standards than
> the reason for being put on moderation in the first place. Which means that
> we should delegate back to ComDev's guidelines[1][2], and if they are not
> adequate then patch it there...
Big +1, there's no reason why D&I should have different etiquette than
other parts of the ASF.
I have already suggested that the D&I material should go to
community.apache.org and this confirms it, there's too much overlap
IMO to have separate websites.
-Bertrand
> [1] http://community.apache.org/contributors/etiquette
> [2] http://www.apache.org/dev/contrib-email-tips
Re: Moderation guidelines
Posted by Naomi S <no...@tumbolia.org>.
sharing a website and sharing a moderation policy are two different things
and I am not convinced on either
we have a D&I website and a D&I wiki, and we should use both to clearly
document things that are specific to D&I, such as the D&I mailing list
moderation guidelines
we face a specific social problem on the D&I mailing lists, and is going to
take a specific approach to solve (or at least, mitigate). let's first try
to solve the problems we have here before we task ourselves with solving
the problem of mailing list moderation in the general case
if someone from ComDev wants to use our efforts here to inform some larger,
more general, effort, that is commendable. but please, as a nascent D&I
effort, we're already under enough pressure. we don't need to make this
more difficult than it has to be
On Fri, 19 Jul 2019 at 16:09, Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>
wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 3:59 PM Myrle Krantz <my...@apache.org> wrote:
> > ...I'm just too busy right now with other stuff to
> > drive that conversation on ComDev...
>
> If my suggestion to include the D&I content under
> http://community.apache.org/ is followed, there's no need to have a
> conversation, D&I can just do it.
>
> Or maybe have a single initial conversation, to declare D&I and comdev
> as friends who share a website. We've been doing that between
> "sibling" Apache projects in the past, even for code repositories, and
> that worked quite well.
>
> -Bertrand
>
Re: Moderation guidelines
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 3:59 PM Myrle Krantz <my...@apache.org> wrote:
> ...I'm just too busy right now with other stuff to
> drive that conversation on ComDev...
If my suggestion to include the D&I content under
http://community.apache.org/ is followed, there's no need to have a
conversation, D&I can just do it.
Or maybe have a single initial conversation, to declare D&I and comdev
as friends who share a website. We've been doing that between
"sibling" Apache projects in the past, even for code repositories, and
that worked quite well.
-Bertrand
Re: Moderation guidelines
Posted by Myrle Krantz <my...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 3:41 PM Niclas Hedhman <he...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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...
>
Oh good. I was somewhat surprised. : o)
>
> 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.
>
That's reasonable. But I'm just too busy right now with other stuff to
drive that conversation on ComDev. Also, yes, I agree it should be rare.
Best,
Myrle
Re: Moderation guidelines
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <he...@gmail.com>.
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 <my...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 2:52 AM Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org> 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/>
>
Re: Moderation guidelines
Posted by Myrle Krantz <my...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 2:52 AM Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org> 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/>
Re: Moderation guidelines
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
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.
Instead, I think moderation should not have any different standards than
the reason for being put on moderation in the first place. Which means that
we should delegate back to ComDev's guidelines[1][2], and if they are not
adequate then patch it there.
One bit that I think is missing;
* "Try to avoid using emotionally loaded language, avoid assigning fault
and avoid absolute stipulations"
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@
[1] http://community.apache.org/contributors/etiquette
[2] http://www.apache.org/dev/contrib-email-tips
// Niclas
On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 3:05 AM Myrle Krantz <my...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> We've started a discussion on the first draft of some moderation guidelines
> on private@diversity, and after a couple of short rounds, we decided it
> would be more appropriate to discuss here on the public list.
>
> The document in question is already public here:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/EDI/Draft+moderation+guidelines
>
> This is a very early draft, that has mostly been the results of
> improvisational moderating. Your feedback is quite welcome.
>
> Anyone who's already made comments on the private list is welcome to move
> them here. I'm going to skip it with mine for a little bit, not because I
> feel the need to hide them, but because I'm quite tired, and I need to get
> some other stuff done.
>
> : o),
> Myrle
>
Re: Moderation guidelines
Posted by Myrle Krantz <my...@apache.org>.
Hey Ted,
This is good. I've adjusted it slightly and entered it in the draft. This
draft is intended as an instruction set for moderators. Moderators who
should be working towards the goals you outlined. All of my adjustments
were to that context.
Thank you,
Myrle
On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 9:45 PM Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think those are very nice guidelines.
>
> I would recommend a mission statement in the form of a paragraph at the
> beginning of the guidelines. Something along the lines of:
>
> These guidelines are intended to improve the ability of the participants of
> this list to hear from as many participants as possible without preventing
> anyone from having their say. To that end, these guidelines should be
> considered a success if more people are willing to participate in
> discussions even if a some individuals are asked to hold back. These
> guidelines should be considered a failure if they are used to completely
> silence any person or point of view that is relevant to the topics for this
> mailing list. Suggestions for improving these guidelines are welcome.
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 12:05 PM Myrle Krantz <my...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Hey all,
> >
> > We've started a discussion on the first draft of some moderation
> guidelines
> > on private@diversity, and after a couple of short rounds, we decided it
> > would be more appropriate to discuss here on the public list.
> >
> > The document in question is already public here:
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/EDI/Draft+moderation+guidelines
> >
> > This is a very early draft, that has mostly been the results of
> > improvisational moderating. Your feedback is quite welcome.
> >
> > Anyone who's already made comments on the private list is welcome to move
> > them here. I'm going to skip it with mine for a little bit, not because
> I
> > feel the need to hide them, but because I'm quite tired, and I need to
> get
> > some other stuff done.
> >
> > : o),
> > Myrle
> >
>
Re: Moderation guidelines
Posted by Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>.
I think those are very nice guidelines.
I would recommend a mission statement in the form of a paragraph at the
beginning of the guidelines. Something along the lines of:
These guidelines are intended to improve the ability of the participants of
this list to hear from as many participants as possible without preventing
anyone from having their say. To that end, these guidelines should be
considered a success if more people are willing to participate in
discussions even if a some individuals are asked to hold back. These
guidelines should be considered a failure if they are used to completely
silence any person or point of view that is relevant to the topics for this
mailing list. Suggestions for improving these guidelines are welcome.
On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 12:05 PM Myrle Krantz <my...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> We've started a discussion on the first draft of some moderation guidelines
> on private@diversity, and after a couple of short rounds, we decided it
> would be more appropriate to discuss here on the public list.
>
> The document in question is already public here:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/EDI/Draft+moderation+guidelines
>
> This is a very early draft, that has mostly been the results of
> improvisational moderating. Your feedback is quite welcome.
>
> Anyone who's already made comments on the private list is welcome to move
> them here. I'm going to skip it with mine for a little bit, not because I
> feel the need to hide them, but because I'm quite tired, and I need to get
> some other stuff done.
>
> : o),
> Myrle
>