Online Community Working Group #23
Conversation
Ideas
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I just wanted to say: great initiative. I'm not sure I will have enough time to dedicate to joining the group, but on the off chance I end up on the board I'd be happy to be the board liaison for my term.
I also left specific comments. Anything I didn't comment on LGTM I think :)
| The Forum and the Discord are core parts of the overall community and those that help and moderate these platforms take significant time from their day to help others. We can support them through training and taking action to make their lives easier. | ||
|
|
||
| The broad goals of the group are: | ||
| - facilitate and centralise discussion between moderators and admins on the various platforms |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I wonder how much input you can get from people (e.g. me) that are admins on the Discord while they're not in the group themselves. But I imagine everyone is happy to share, and ideally some group members would have reasonable access levels to at least the mod only sections for example.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think we need all admins/moderators to be part of the working group 👍
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Agreed that not all admins/moderators need to be a part of the group, but I would prefer representation and input from those groups.
|
|
||
| - What actions are you proposing the WG be allowed to take directly? | ||
| - Creation and management of processes related to community platforms. | ||
| - Adding/removing moderators & other roles |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm a bit wary of delegating this. I think what we have done with the Discord has worked well so far and I'm not sure people would be happy with having mods "imposed" on them.
I'm not so sure about the forum. One issue is that I think only Andrew has full access, right?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That's fair, I could have worded this better, but initial idea was to simply formalize what we already do with a tiny bit more regularity. ie having the WG prompt the mod teams to review any new moderators, ask if anyone wants to step down at regular periods (eg 6 months)
Definitely not going to be imposing anyone on any community
| - Creation and management of processes related to community platforms. | ||
| - Adding/removing moderators & other roles | ||
| - Training for moderators | ||
| - Ensuring moderation is consistent across teams and platforms |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think this can be ensured, but we should still strive.
One issue I think is that Discord skews quite gen Z and especially quite "online" people. I think we tolerate (and probably should, with some guidance for them) things there that probably wouldn't in other places. Personally I find this to be a strength but it has been one of the constant problems. There is a constant tension between people wanting me to ban people and when I do ban people, people telling me I'm doing a bad job for banning them. Which is weird because I only ever banned one person for a CoC violation in the first place. You can probably tell this is a bit of a sore spot so I do think something should be done here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this starts with producing actionable guidance and some transparency on how we go about about moderation. This guidance does need to take into account the nuances of each platform and what is natural about each of them.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think I mostly agree that sensitivity to context is important, and that there are behaviors that would be fine in one place and not in another. Like, a common communication pattern in real-time chat platforms is to
make a longer point
spread out over several messages
one at a time
kinda thinking it through as you go
making a lot of short posts.
That's, like, completely fine in Discord or Slack or whatever, but if someone were to do that on the forum, consistently, or here in Github, we'd probably find it pretty annoying and at some point someone probablly should ask them to conform a bit more to the norms of the platform.
But on the other hand, thiis needs to have some limits. Context does mater, but only to a point. There are certainly corners of the Discord community where, for example, homophobic slurs are common. That's pretty clearly not OK in official Django spaces.
I was super happy to see this proposal because it seems to be like this group could be a place where these lines can get hashed out. Starting with some core agreed-upon principles that then can be massaged for different contexts seems super cool to me.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, completely agreed (although typing
like this
also annoys me on
Discord and Slack
) :)
active/community.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| Suggestions: | ||
|
|
||
| - Private Channel in the Discord Server and private category in the forum. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just a note here that I and a few others (whoever was in the ops team a few years ago, but not up to date, so e.g. Florian still has powers but Baptiste not) can see all private channels. This is unlikely to be an issue unless you're talking about someone who can see it, but just to be aware.
Co-authored-by: Tom Carrick <[email protected]>
| The Forum and the Discord are core parts of the overall community and those that help and moderate these platforms take significant time from their day to help others. We can support them through training and taking action to make their lives easier. | ||
|
|
||
| The broad goals of the group are: | ||
| - facilitate and centralise discussion between moderators and admins on the various platforms |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think we need all admins/moderators to be part of the working group 👍
active/community.md
Outdated
| - I'm unsure what power's might be delegated, if any. Board members would need to input into this. | ||
| - Admin privileges to members of the forum & Discord or existing admin representive joining as a member. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think these spaces have worked independently as a while being "non-official", so with that in mind...
I think this group (in coordination with the DSF) should be able to grant a space the "official" Django community status considering we might exist on new platforms in the future.
[In order to do that, I think there must be some set of guidelines in place (needs moderation for example)]
I also think it would be great if this group can help "retire" an online community that is no longer maintained or meets the guidelines
I think any community which has been approved by the working group should have a place linked on the website
There was a problem hiding this comment.
1000% this! Succession of platforms was one thing on my mind for this group with the recent drop off in the use of mailing lists.
| With regards to Django Software Foundation responsibilities and resources, the group operates with: | ||
|
|
||
| - I'm unsure what power's might be delegated, if any. Board members would need to input into this. | ||
| - Admin privileges to members of the forum & Discord or existing admin representive joining as a member. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't see much delegated powers, either; this group seems more of a place for a community of practice than a group that needs to act on behalf of the board.
I s'pose at some point we could transition the budget for paying for Discourse to the group directly (and in theory Discord though I don't think we pay for anything there right?) -- that seems fine to me, but also it's such a minor thing it doesn't really matter where it lays imo.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For Discord, I pay around ~$6 monthly to run a bot on Digital Ocean. It's arguable whether it's worth having or not as we have another (free) bot that does more stuff. But I would like to use it for more things, just, well, time :) - I'm happy to keep paying for it myself anyway.
One other thing we could consider is paying for boosts. These are like a yearly subscription more or less. If you buy nitro (kind of premium status) for your account you can boost a server. And then you can buy extra boosts. At the moment there are 12 people boosting the server, including me. This has varied and mostly increased over time. To keep the server at level 3, which has some benefits, we'd need 14. So there is perhaps a case to pay for some boosts. The most interesting thing we really gain from this is having a custom invite link, which I think would look something like https://discord.gg/django - which is a bit easier on the eyes than the current invite links we use (e.g. on the website). It's quite expensive at around (for me) €35 per year per boost. Worth it? Probably not, but good to keep in mind.
Co-authored-by: Sarah Boyce <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Sarah Boyce <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Sarah Boyce <[email protected]>
|
Thanks for the feedback! Any suggestions for who to prod nicely on the forum admin & moderator teams to input into this? |
I think @andrewgodwin might be an admin and @KenWhitesell might be a moderator |
|
I think this sounds like a great idea. As the (very newly elected) Chair of the Code of Conduct WG I wanted to say we are happy to help in any way we can. |
This is my initial draft.
Would you be interested in joining this and helping improve our online community spaces?