#71: IRC SIG reform ---------------------+--------------------- Reporter: be0 | Owner: Status: new | Priority: normal Component: General | Resolution: Keywords: | ---------------------+--------------------- Comment (by strikerttd): "The current members of the IRC SIG have taken no initiative to make this happen themselves." - I'd like to state that some of us do stick up for the users when things get out of hand: - https://fedorahosted.org/irc-support-sig/ticket/174 - https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2015-03-26/irc- support-sig.2015-03-26-17.00.log.html -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/council/ticket/71#comment:1> council <https://fedorahosted.org/council> Fedora Council Public Tickets

#71: IRC SIG reform ---------------------+--------------------- Reporter: be0 | Owner: Status: new | Priority: normal Component: General | Resolution: Keywords: | ---------------------+--------------------- Comment (by be0): I apologize if that came off as dismissive of your efforts Striker. Thank you for standing up for the users and common decency. What I meant is that, as a group, the IRC SIG has not responded to the council-discuss thread by proposing to implement changes themselves and instead deflected to outside authority. -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/council/ticket/71#comment:3> council <https://fedorahosted.org/council> Fedora Council Public Tickets

#71: IRC SIG reform ---------------------+--------------------- Reporter: be0 | Owner: Status: new | Priority: normal Component: General | Resolution: Keywords: | ---------------------+--------------------- Comment (by jbwillia): ok as the senior person with ops ( i was made a channel op by warren back in fc3) I really want to see everyone on this council to spend time in the #fedora channel helping for at least one week (walk in our shoes as they say) yes irc is a bad place, we try to be polite and with all text mediums that sometimes comes across the wrong way. -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/council/ticket/71#comment:5> council <https://fedorahosted.org/council> Fedora Council Public Tickets

#71: IRC SIG reform ---------------------+--------------------- Reporter: be0 | Owner: Status: new | Priority: normal Component: General | Resolution: Keywords: | ---------------------+--------------------- Comment (by bex): A few ideas came out of the council meeting. Your feedback and comments are greatly appreciated: * What if we split moderation and ops duties. Under this model, ops does technical work and enacts moderator decisions that require privileges as needed. Moderators would be drawn from ambassadors, diversity and commops. The groups are already charged with helping with friendliness and accessibility. Those groups would need to decide how to determine who is a moderator and for how long. * Assuming a moderator/ops split, ops could serve as an in the moment reality check for moderator decisions. * Consider guidelines for how to log problems and Code of Conduct violations. Consider anonymized external reporting. * Hold annual elections (or release cycle elections) for ops. -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/council/ticket/71#comment:7> council <https://fedorahosted.org/council> Fedora Council Public Tickets

What you are suggesting would be bringing in essentially an entirely new set of "moderators" which would need to monitor the channel 24/7, understand the systems in place and the processes, but then also expect that the "ops" be available to handle chan-op duties if it comes to needing an action done. And on top of that, it would require coordination between these two groups and some sort of system in place to determine who has what responsibility as well as a mechanism in place to allow a "mod" to 'authorize' an "op" to take action. This is all overly complicated and is unnecessary. Adding more process to this is not the way to fix it. I would hope the counsel takes your original issue and advice in mind but they are well capable of making their own decisions when it comes to how to maintain community interaction. I don't think there's any need to continue pushing your agenda.

#71: IRC SIG reform ---------------------+--------------------- Reporter: be0 | Owner: Status: new | Priority: normal Component: General | Resolution: Keywords: | ---------------------+--------------------- Comment (by kevin): Replying to [comment:7 bex]: are greatly appreciated: does technical work and enacts moderator decisions that require privileges as needed. Moderators would be drawn from ambassadors, diversity and commops. The groups are already charged with helping with friendliness and accessibility. Those groups would need to decide how to determine who is a moderator and for how long. reality check for moderator decisions. I fear this would be pretty complex and lead to situations where one or the other group is not around and no action is taken, or the process bypassed. violations. Consider anonymized external reporting. Sure, but again, I think this could get too complex... we do have the logs in the bot currently. If we made sure annotations are in there would that be enough? I don't think thats a good way to go about things. It could lead to people voting for whoever they think (or know) would let them get away with things, would cause more voter fatigue, and seems out of place for a technical position. Now, I don't want to be all negative here, and I am personally not adverse to change. Some more ideas I'll toss out: * Since the irc sig doesnt have too many active members these days and currently only meets when we have open tickets, perhaps we could pull them into the commops meetings/list. Just have a section to discuss issues there and increase visibility to perhaps bring in more active people. * If we can get folks from ambassadors, diversity and commops interested in helping out in channel perhaps come up with some way to promote from them to ops after they have proven they will be around and are suited for/interested in doing that. I really think the best way to improve friendlyness is not by increasing enforcement or punishment, but by simply having lots more friendly people around. So, I am personally also very much in favor of trying to increase the helpfull, friendly people in channel. -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/council/ticket/71#comment:9> council <https://fedorahosted.org/council> Fedora Council Public Tickets

#71: IRC SIG reform ---------------------+--------------------- Reporter: be0 | Owner: Status: new | Priority: normal Component: General | Resolution: Keywords: | ---------------------+--------------------- Comment (by phanes): I'd like to suggest that while anonymized external reporting is good, it is in the best interests of the community to be using a system that also: 1) needs to be logged into to view relevant content, with open public registration 2) Has a community-determined age limit for expiration of that content. Without that, those types of systems can become: re: Anonymized External Reporting, Closed Viewing, Open Public Registration -) A vehicle for public humiliation (chronicling arguments from IRC on the web forever, sharing links during groupthink breakdowns et al) -) or blacklisting ("ban this person, I found this fedora log") re: content expiration: -) Prevention of users from being able to outlive their mistakes. It is too easy for a dislocated entity to eventually become trigger happy with exiling problematic users, and I think this can detract from the purpose and nobility of the role these groups would serve. I like the direction you guys are headed with this and support it fully, I'd just like to recommend these 2 aspects to avoid mistakes I've seen made in other places (and have even made myself at times). We should bear in mind that while this has been a problem in Fedora for some time, not only is there all too often crossover between channels when the wrong people get into positions of authority, there can often be continued efforts towards an argument and it's not always the user. These will improve the welcoming environment Fedora is trying to foster. IRC arguments can become quite heated and long lasting, and this will protect the users as well as the operators during diffusion. Good luck, and good job if you can bring this split concept to Fedora IRC governship, I think it's well understood that the current ops list in most channels could use an occassional power cycle. --two cents -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/council/ticket/71#comment:11> council <https://fedorahosted.org/council> Fedora Council Public Tickets