github-team-discussion policy

[refack]

An alternative to #121
For approval by the @nodejs/tsc and @nodejs/community-committee

As discussed in the 2018-06-14 meeting of the Community Committee, we recommend considering "Team Discussions" as public, and setting that as the default organizational policy. If chartered sub projects or working groups want to set their own rules, it will be their responsibility to enforce those rules and moderate those discussions.

[refack]

I don't think that we should be encouraging using discussions. Discussions are not public. They may be "publicly" viewable to the org, but that isn't open / transparent to the greater community.

I get what you are saying... What I was trying to phrase was a statement that does not
encourage, but makes some statement on their use, i.e. they are not to be used as a private forum.

There are some instances where it makes sense to use discussions, such as checking for objections on nominations. If we are to document anything for discussions I believe it should be listing the few times where it is appropriate to use them.

So that's where the comm-comm wants to delegate this decision to nodejs/node for example. To find if there is consensus about this use (I don't think there is Ref: nodejs/node#17162)

[refack]

@MylesBorins PTAL if I was able to phrase this better.

[bnb]

As discussed in the 2018-06-14 meeting of the Community Committee, we recommend considering "Team Discussions" as public

Can you please share the reference?

So that's where the comm-comm wants to delegate this decision to nodejs/node for example

Again, can you please provide an exact reference?

[jakeNiemiec]

@bnb https://youtu.be/xegrAiHy20g?t=2594

[hackygolucky]

I'm not hearing anything in this recording that settles on us writing a new policy for admin. In this recording, I distinctly recommended -not- putting this in the admin repo and that it should be up to the CommComm or the TSC to first set this and then both groups, if this works, could both enact this as a guideline.

I think we should also focus on guidelines that recommend where TO have conversations instead of where not to do things. CommComm isn't heavily using Team Discussions right now, so I'm wondering what instigated this in the first place? We try not to write rules and optimize for things that haven't happened.

In short, recommendations:

1. Move this PR to CommComm
2. Edit this PR for recommending guideline around public discourse(if you would like to explicitly capture transparency amongst the other values, you can reference them from our charter and membership expectations) instead of where NOT to do things.

[refack]

ping @nodejs/community-committee @nodejs/tsc
IMHO we really should have some wording around this gray-area feature. If not the wording suggested in this PR then something else...

[Trott]

Suggested change

	visibility of "public" threads is limited by GitHub to members of the org only,
	visibility of public threads is limited by GitHub to members of the org only,

[refack]

But here it's referring to a name of a feature. Not the general idea...

[refack]

i.e. this:

[Trott]

Suggested change

	so they are not what the organization defines as public. Use of the "private"
	so they are not what the organization defines as public. Use of the private

[refack]

ditto

[refack]

@hackygolucky I feel that you last comment is slightly off topic, and IMHO it's not empathetic to the opinions of the community member to whom you are apparently answering. I ask to to edit it, or remove it altogether.

Stale review. Issue was addressed, and reviewer has not responded to a request to re-review.

[jasnell]

@refack... To which comment of @hackygolucky's are you referring to? I don't see any that are off topic or inappropriate in any way, let alone any that should be moderated or deleted.

@nodejs/moderation... I'd like to challenge this moderation request. It would get good to get input from the full moderation team on whether any action is necessary here.

[jasnell]

I'm not convinced this is something we need to have a policy statement for at this time.

[othiym23]

@nodejs/moderation... I'd like to challenge this moderation request. It would get good to get input from the full moderation team on whether any action is necessary here.

For the record, even though @hackygolucky is a member of the moderation team, she's recusing herself from this discussion.

@jasnell As you've requested, I've reviewed @hackygolucky's comment and @refack's response, and see only a request for clarification and some recommendations from @hackygolucky, which seem well within the scope of @hackygolucky's role as a member of commcomm. I don't see unwelcoming language or anything else that would fall under the purview of moderation.

[refack]

I specifically addressed @hackygolucky personally, when asking her to reconsider, since I did not consider this a moderation issue.

I prefer to explain my position further in a non-public forum.

[refack]

I'm not convinced this is something we need to have a policy statement for at this time.

@jasnell policy was requested by several community members. I don't have a strong preference to the specifics, but I do think we should have something. There's #121 as an alternative.

[Trott]

There seems to be sufficient opposition to this that consensus is unlikely. I'm going to close this.

@refack and anyone else: Feel free to re-open (or comment if GitHub doesn't permit you to re-open) if you disagree with my assessment. Closing this is me making my best assessment as to the right thing to do with this PR at this time, but that's just my opinion only.