The cost of being inclusive and transparent #112

earl-warren commented 2024年02月03日 16:21:45 +01:00

The governance agreement on having Forgejo be a hard fork of Gitea is controversial and there is no right or wrong: in the end it will be a leap of faith, a judgement call. It was clear from the start that:

• unrelated discussions would (deliberately or not) derail the conversation
• off-topic negative comments would be posted
• it would be a target for people banned for harassment in Forgejo

As a member of the Forgejo moderation team, that was a concern and I made a mental note to:

• actively create and participate in discussions that, although off topic, deserved to be be continued
• gently remind people posting negative off-topic comments to do that elsewhere
• enforce the harassment ban

About two weeks after the agreement was first posted, all of this has happened and I spent:

• 98% of the time creating and participating in unrelated discussions (e.g. Gitea is Open Core)
• 1% of the time reminding people to stay on topic (e.g. "Sad to see, that reasonable comments get deleted")
• 1% of the time enforcing the ban

It is work but I'm happy to keep doing that because it means Forgejo is an inclusive environment where everything is transparent. None of that work would be necessary if this agreement was discussed behind closed doors. People banned for harassment would be blocked at the door. People who have no stake in Forgejo would not enter either and would not have the opportunity to derail the conversation.

The cost of being inclusive and transparent is dealing with the noise and unwanted attention. Quite cheap, I think.

This is my personal view of the situation and I would be interested to know if anyone has a different experience.

The governance agreement [on having Forgejo be a hard fork of Gitea](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/issues/58) is controversial and there is no right or wrong: in the end it will be a leap of faith, a judgement call. It was clear from the start that: * unrelated discussions would (deliberately or not) derail the conversation * off-topic negative comments would be posted * it would be a target for people banned for harassment in Forgejo As a member of the Forgejo moderation team, that was a concern and I made a mental note to: * actively create and participate in discussions that, although off topic, deserved to be be continued * gently remind people posting negative off-topic comments to do that elsewhere * enforce the harassment ban About two weeks after the agreement was first posted, all of this has happened and I spent: * 98% of the time creating and participating in unrelated discussions (e.g. [Gitea is Open Core](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/discussions/issues/102)) * 1% of the time reminding people to stay on topic (e.g. "Sad to see, that reasonable comments get deleted") * 1% of the time enforcing the ban It is work but I'm happy to keep doing that because it means Forgejo is an inclusive environment where everything is transparent. None of that work would be necessary if this agreement was discussed behind closed doors. People banned for harassment would be blocked at the door. People who have no stake in Forgejo would not enter either and would not have the opportunity to derail the conversation. The cost of being inclusive and transparent is dealing with the noise and unwanted attention. Quite cheap, I think. This is my personal view of the situation and I would be interested to know if anyone has a different experience.

Codeberg.org commented 2024年02月04日 08:37:15 +01:00

A message was redacted by the Codeberg moderation team for circumventing a ban established by a project.

We want to remind everyone that nice behaviour in project is key to collaboration. Thank you for your understanding.

Please contact the Forgejo moderation team, they have received a copy of the removed messages.

A message was redacted by the Codeberg moderation team for circumventing a ban established by a project. We want to remind everyone that nice behaviour in project is key to collaboration. Thank you for your understanding. Please contact the Forgejo moderation team, they have received a copy of the removed messages.

oatbiscuits commented 2024年02月04日 10:56:32 +01:00

As someone who only recently started contributing to Forgejo, I can't emphasise enough how much transparency and inclusivity contribute to the accessibility of the project to all of its stakeholders. I believe this approach falls in line with the purpose and objectives of Forgejo, as it allows the project to stay connected with its community, leading to decisions being taken that address many more concerns than a rather exclusive and less transparent governance policy would take. It comes with the kind of trade-offs that shape up a mature, self-sustaining community around the project.

As someone who only recently started contributing to Forgejo, I can't emphasise enough how much transparency and inclusivity contribute to the accessibility of the project to *all* of its stakeholders. I believe this approach falls in line with the purpose and objectives of Forgejo, as it allows the project to stay connected with its community, leading to decisions being taken that address many more concerns than a rather exclusive and less transparent governance policy would take. It comes with the kind of trade-offs that shape up a mature, self-sustaining community around the project.

forgejo-moderation commented 2024年02月05日 07:29:22 +01:00

A message from an account created to circumvent a ban from Forgejo spaces was deleted, send a mail to moderation@forgejo.org for more information.

A message from an account created to circumvent a ban from Forgejo spaces was deleted, send a mail to moderation@forgejo.org for more information.