Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
91 lines (74 loc) · 3.98 KB

2019-03-14.md

File metadata and controls

91 lines (74 loc) · 3.98 KB
Raw

Community and Safety WG

Mar 14, 2019

Attendees:

  • Charles (@ckerr)
  • Jacob (@groundwater)
  • John (@jkleinsc)
  • Shelley (@codebytere)
  • Sofia (@sofianguy)
  • Tony (@tonyganch)

Agenda

In previous series:

  • 2019-03-12 Slack status of non-governance members was switched to multi-channel guests.
  • WG channels, bot-*, release branches (4.x.x, etc.) and #pineapple became governance-only channels.
  • The same day announcement was made in #random channel, which led to some people expressing concerns about the change.

Discussion:

  1. Can someone not be a part of any WG but still be a full-time contributor and have full Slack access?

    • Why should a person be a full member if they are not in Gov?
    • There is a number of faithful contributors, who are pretty involved. They can’t be in Gov because of time constraints: being part of WG implies responsibilities and participation in regular meetings.
    • Every WG sets their own rules for membership, which doesn't neccessarily mean huge time investment.
    • Can we say we're inclusive if we keep channels to Gov people only?
    • Intelectual safety is more important than transparency.
    • Limiting most channels to Gov-only members doesn't mean we're not transparent: we will have a public repo and every WG will publish notes from their meetings, and all important decisions. Other community members will be able to open issues in that repo to open discussion on topics they care about.
    • Inclusivity doesn't mean you get to silently observe work of others without bringing anything to the table. If you want to observe, you should also participate. Governance is not a closed club, everyone can join, WGs have open guidelines for including new members. So if a person wants to be a full Slack member, they can just join Gov.
    • Each WG gets to decide on their own, if their channel is open to guests or not. Example: #wg-security.

  2. Deactivate inactive users.

    • Inactive users are the ones who haven't logged in in the last 6 months. Based on access logs, this number is only around 60 people. This means, if we deactivate them, total number of members in big channels like #general or #random will go down from ~300 to ~200.
    • This leads to a question: what problem exactly are we trying to solve by deactivation/removal? Jacob has mentioned, that people use direct messages too often mostly because they are uncomfortable posting to a chat with ~300 people. But in this case, 300 or 200 doesn't make big difference.

  3. Do a write-up for Slack members so people who may be feeling alienated know what’s going on.

  4. Are we a proactive or reactive WG?

    • If we feel smth is not right, do we take initiative and reach out to people, or do we wait for the to reach out to us?
    • @tonyganch: Reaching out sometimes feels like “Oh wow, they do care”.

For future meetings:

  1. What is role of #pineapple? Should it be a default channel or governanve-only? If latter, then what is purpose of #pineapple-private?

Decisions:

  1. Full Slack membership is limited only to governance people.
  2. Each WG sets their own rules on how to join it and whether their Slack channel is open to guests or not.
  3. If community decides a WG is missing, we can create one.
  4. Instead of deactivating inactive users, switch them to multi-channel guests.

TODOs:

  • Write a follow-up message to #general explaining the change (@tonyganch)
    • Post a draft to Slack channel and vote on content before sending the message to public
  • Change Slack access documentation in governance repo based on answer
  • Switch role of inactive Slack users to multi-channel guests (@sofianguy)