[AGREEMENT] Disolving and re-creating the Well-Being team #146

Ghost commented 2023年01月31日 22:14:03 +01:00

Applications

• Loïc Dachary #152

Rationale

The Well-Being team was created at the very beginning of the Forgejo project and has not been approved by the Forgejo community. This needs to change given how important it became. Now that there exists an embryo of decision making, I propose it is done as follows.

• A discussion happens in this issue regarding how the Well-Being team is to be appointed
• Forgejo community members apply to be part of the future Well-Being team (following the examples set by the existing applications in other teams (see 1 and 2) or whatever they think more appropriate).
• The larger Forgejo community is actively asked for feedback when there is at least two applicants (the assignee of this issue are accountable to make that happen)
• When at least two members meet the approval of the community, the existing Well-Being team is dissolved and hand over their duties to the newly formed team.

Accountability

The Well-Being team is accountable for just one thing: Defuse tensions before they escalate. They have no procedure to do so and no power to enforce anything, let alone the Code of Conduct. When and if they fail to defuse tension, they need to defer to the moderation team who is ultimately empowered to take action in order to enforce the Code of Conduct.

Duration

Members of the Well-Being team are expected to re-apply at least every year.

Does that sound like a sensible way to create a legitimate Well-Being team?

### Applications * Loïc Dachary https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/issues/152 ### Rationale The [Well-Being team](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/src/branch/readme/TEAMS.md#well-being) was created at the very beginning of the Forgejo project and has not been approved by the Forgejo community. This needs to change given how important it became. Now that there exists an [embryo of decision making](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/src/branch/readme/DECISION-MAKING.md), I propose it is done as follows. * A **discussion** happens in this issue regarding how the Well-Being team is to be appointed * Forgejo community members **apply** to be part of the future Well-Being team (following the examples set by the existing applications in other teams (see [1](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/issues/142) and [2](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/issues/141)) or whatever they think more appropriate). * The larger Forgejo community is **actively asked for feedback** when there is at least two applicants (the assignee of this issue are accountable to make that happen) * When at least two members meet the approval of the community, the existing Well-Being team is dissolved and hand over their duties to the newly formed team. ### Accountability The Well-Being team is accountable for just one thing: **Defuse tensions before they escalate**. They have no procedure to do so and no power to enforce anything, let alone the Code of Conduct. When and if they fail to defuse tension, they need to defer to the moderation team who is ultimately empowered to take action in order to enforce the Code of Conduct. ### Duration Members of the Well-Being team are expected to re-apply at least every year. Does that sound like a sensible way to create a legitimate Well-Being team?

fsologureng commented 2023年01月31日 22:47:27 +01:00

I think Well-Being team should be merged with the Moderation team. If a long term conflict needs special attention, a special measure could be taken in account with a dedicated internal discussion; The ultimate objective of both is avoiding conflicts and preserve a joyful space, prevent conflict escalating is part of the challenge.

Until here, I see that Moderation should enter after Well-Being fails, but entering into moderation too late don't prevent well of harming people.

Ambiguity about the scope of each other could be an additional difficulty for resolution, legitimacy and even accountability, and tbh I struggle to see the difference.

I think Well-Being team should be merged with the Moderation team. If a long term conflict needs special attention, a special measure could be taken in account with a dedicated internal discussion; The ultimate objective of both is avoiding conflicts and preserve a joyful space, prevent conflict escalating is part of the challenge. Until here, I see that Moderation should enter after Well-Being fails, but entering into moderation too late don't prevent well of harming people. Ambiguity about the scope of each other could be an additional difficulty for resolution, legitimacy and even accountability, and tbh I struggle to see the difference.

Ghost commented 2023年01月31日 22:59:14 +01:00

I think Well-Being team should be merged with the Moderation team.

There is value in a Well-Being team that has no power because it is able to engage in a non-confrontational way and defuse tension. Something a moderation team cannot really do because they ultimately have the power to enforce whatever they think best and the person on the other end of the dialog knows that very well.

When sitting at the table with someone who has the power to kick you out, there is no genuine dialog possible.

In addition there are people, like myself, who are very uncomfortable having any kind of power over anyone. They may be very willing to participate in a team who has no power but is expected to have a soothing effect when tension builds. And the same people would not want to be part of a moderation team.

Does that sound like two sensible reasons to keep the teams separate?

> I think Well-Being team should be merged with the Moderation team. There is value in a Well-Being team that has no power because it is able to engage in a non-confrontational way and defuse tension. Something a moderation team cannot really do because they ultimately have the power to enforce whatever they think best and the person on the other end of the dialog knows that very well. When sitting at the table with someone who has the power to kick you out, there is no genuine dialog possible. In addition there are people, like myself, who are very uncomfortable having any kind of power over anyone. They may be very willing to participate in a team who has no power but is expected to have a soothing effect when tension builds. And the same people would not want to be part of a moderation team. Does that sound like two sensible reasons to keep the teams separate?

fsologureng commented 2023年01月31日 23:36:17 +01:00

I think the Welfare team should be merged with the Moderation team.

A Welfare team that has no power is valuable because they can intervene in a non-confrontational way and de-escalate the tension. Something a moderation team can't really do because ultimately they have the power to impose what they think is best and the person on the other side of the dialogue knows that very well.

When you sit at the table with someone who has the power to kick you out, there is no genuine dialogue possible.

A parent and a teacher have the same power and are capable of dialogue with people without power (there are exceptions, of course). Power is not in itself abusive or insensitive. To avoid abuse there is transparency, which is also part of our agreements.

There are also people, like me, who feel very uncomfortable having any kind of power over anyone. They may be very willing to participate in a team that has no power but is expected to have a calming effect when tension builds up. And the same people would not want to be part of a moderation team.

I hope that both types of people will be part of the team. It would be very positive. The roles could be shared and complement each other. Use of power and sensitivity are not mutually exclusive.

Do these seem like two sensible reasons for keeping the teams separate?

My main concern is people with whom mediation dialogue is not effective and who might act aggressively enough to do quick harm. We live in a world where such people are gaining more and more space. The federation is one of the best approaches to mitigate this, but it is not yet ready and equally in need of moderation tools for the forges. I think a good mix of power and sensitivity is possible and is available.

> > I think the Welfare team should be merged with the Moderation team. > > A Welfare team that has no power is valuable because they can intervene in a non-confrontational way and de-escalate the tension. Something a moderation team can't really do because ultimately they have the power to impose what they think is best and the person on the other side of the dialogue knows that very well. > > When you sit at the table with someone who has the power to kick you out, there is no genuine dialogue possible. A parent and a teacher have the same power and are capable of dialogue with people without power (there are exceptions, of course). Power is not in itself abusive or insensitive. To avoid abuse there is transparency, which is also part of our agreements. > > There are also people, like me, who feel very uncomfortable having any kind of power over anyone. They may be very willing to participate in a team that has no power but is expected to have a calming effect when tension builds up. And the same people would not want to be part of a moderation team. I hope that both types of people will be part of the team. It would be very positive. The roles could be shared and complement each other. Use of power and sensitivity are not mutually exclusive. > > Do these seem like two sensible reasons for keeping the teams separate? My main concern is people with whom mediation dialogue is not effective and who might act aggressively enough to do quick harm. We live in a world where such people are gaining more and more space. The federation is one of the best approaches to mitigate this, but it is not yet ready and equally in need of moderation tools for the forges. I think a good mix of power and sensitivity is possible and is available.

Ghost commented 2023年02月01日 07:38:19 +01:00

There are also people, like me, who feel very uncomfortable having any kind of power over anyone.
...

I hope that both types of people will be part of the team.

A moderation team has, by definition, the power to exclude Forgejo community members from chatrooms or delete/redact content in projects.

I do not want to be part of a team that has such power, for various reasons (some based on a rationale, others personal).

I however will happily be part of a team that helps defuse tensions.

>> There are also people, like me, who feel very uncomfortable having any kind of power over anyone. >> ... > > I hope that both types of people will be part of the team. A moderation team has, by definition, the power to exclude Forgejo community members from chatrooms or delete/redact content in projects. I do not want to be part of a team that has such power, for various reasons (some based on a rationale, others personal). I however will happily be part of a team that helps defuse tensions.

tallship commented 2023年02月03日 21:00:52 +01:00

@dachary

There are also people, like me, who feel very uncomfortable having any kind of power over anyone.
...

I hope that both types of people will be part of the team.

Yes I concur with this. And it's why the complete merge presents the best option.

And it also serves to disassemble bloated and unwieldy bureaucracy already identified as roundly ineffectual.

One doesn't need to belong to a team to be a concerned project member engaging in various internal resolution processes.

I do not want to be part of a team that has such power, for various reasons (some based on a rationale, others personal).

That is fine, and folding these two functions into an effectual and enabled body achieves the goal of putting the two roles of traditional moderation back together as they have always classically existed - as one role with various facets of responsibility, including both the proactive (conflict resolution) and the reactive (administrative and punitive functions).

And this isn't about you -it's about the project - Forĝejo, injecting yourself personally into the concept of 1⁄2 if the equation while dismissing the other half as beneath your "wanting" isn't conducive to effective management of the one single role in a streamlined, effective process.

This was addressed in the matrix room already. Moderaters aren't people standing around with paddles waiting to spank people -their job is in fact actually conflict resolution, and when conflict cannot be mitigated, then their responsibility is the unenviable part of the job. That was already settled.

I personally perceive it to be somewhat elitist, to assign the hero part of the job with someone who wants to call upon someone else to do the unpopular part of the job when/if they are unable to achieve success in the glamorous part of the job.

I however will happily be part of a team that helps defuse tensions.

You're juggling a lot of responsibilities already. Focussing on release management takes a high priority, while roles such as this can be filled by s much greater pool of candidates.

@dachary >>> There are also people, like me, who feel very uncomfortable having any kind of power over anyone. >>> ... >> >> I hope that both types of people will be part of the team. Yes I concur with this. And it's why the complete merge presents the best option. And it also serves to disassemble bloated and unwieldy bureaucracy already identified as roundly ineffectual. One doesn't need to belong to a team to be a concerned project member engaging in various internal resolution processes. >I do not want to be part of a team that has such power, for various reasons (some based on a rationale, others personal). That is fine, and folding these two functions into an effectual and enabled body achieves the goal of putting the two roles of traditional moderation back together as they have always classically existed - as one role with various facets of responsibility, including both the proactive (conflict resolution) and the reactive (administrative and punitive functions). And this isn't about you -it's about the project - Forĝejo, injecting yourself personally into the concept of 1⁄2 if the equation while dismissing the other half as beneath your "wanting" isn't conducive to effective management of the one single role in a streamlined, effective process. This was addressed in the matrix room already. Moderaters aren't people standing around with paddles waiting to spank people -their job is in fact actually conflict resolution, and when conflict cannot be mitigated, then their responsibility is the unenviable part of the job. That was already settled. I personally perceive it to be somewhat elitist, to assign the hero part of the job with someone who wants to call upon someone else to do the unpopular part of the job when/if they are unable to achieve success in the glamorous part of the job. > >I however will happily be part of a team that helps defuse tensions. You're juggling a lot of responsibilities already. Focussing on release management takes a high priority, while roles such as this can be filled by s much greater pool of candidates.

oliverpool commented 2023年02月03日 21:21:59 +01:00

I think I share the opinion of @dachary.

If someone is being rude in a chatroom, a team member replying something like:

Please be kind.

can be interpreted differently if this member has the power to ban the user or not.

Moreover I do not have the same expectations for the moderation team and the well-being team:

• the well-being should proactively read all messages and react as soon as possible to defuse tension (possibly without synchronisation between its members).
• the moderation team should act only when activated by some community members (not required to read everyting) and the action should be decided by multiple people of this team.

However I don't have any objections that people belong to both teams.

---

In an ideal world, everyone should be part of the well-being team and try to defuse tension when it arises.

And some members should be trusted with moderation powers (whose attention must be sought, when problems arise).

I think I share the opinion of @dachary. If someone is being rude in a chatroom, a team member replying something like: > Please be kind. can be interpreted differently if this member has the power to ban the user or not. Moreover I do not have the same expectations for the moderation team and the well-being team: - the well-being should proactively read all messages and react as soon as possible to defuse tension (possibly without synchronisation between its members). - the moderation team should act only when activated by some community members (not required to read everyting) and the action should be decided by multiple people of this team. However I don't have any objections that people belong to both teams. --- In an ideal world, everyone should be part of the well-being team and try to defuse tension when it arises. And some members should be trusted with moderation powers (whose attention must be sought, when problems arise).

Ghost commented 2023年02月03日 21:53:03 +01:00

Helping defuse tension is indeed something anyone can do and in a healthy community it is likely what happens. The only real difference it makes for people in the well-being team is that they are expected to do that when nobody else is available.

However I don't have any objections that people belong to both teams.

I have no object either.

Helping defuse tension is indeed something anyone can do and in a healthy community it is likely what happens. The only real difference it makes for people in the well-being team is that they are expected to do that when nobody else is available. > However I don't have any objections that people belong to both teams. I have no object either.

Ghost commented 2023年02月03日 22:05:31 +01:00

You're juggling a lot of responsibilities already. Focusing on release management takes a high priority, while roles such as this can be filled by s much greater pool of candidates.

I will happily withdraw my application to the Well-Being team if there are more than two applicants.

> You're juggling a lot of responsibilities already. Focusing on release management takes a high priority, while roles such as this can be filled by s much greater pool of candidates. I will happily withdraw my application to the Well-Being team if there are more than two applicants.

tallship commented 2023年02月03日 22:32:32 +01:00

In an ideal world, everyone should be part of the well-being team and try to defuse tension when it arises.

And some members should be trusted with moderation powers (whose attention must be sought, when problems arise).

Eliminating the (what some might think) foreboding sounding "moderation" team would science machiv achieve this very result.

It was (IIRC) after all, a member of the Well-Being Team that did intervene with moderation powers, while @circlebuilder , being the sole member of the moderation team, that stepped into perform the duties of the well-being team, in their absence, and as a member of the community at large in that perfect scenario.

Eliminating one of the teams reduces the bloat and bureaucratic creep while softening the conjurations of trigger happy ego driven children as moderators when a member of the friendly sounding team intervenes. 🙂

There's also another common approach used - that if a role account. I'm not sure how ummm, Gapodo I think it is, intends to introduce as additional moderation tools in Gitea/Forgejo, but in chat systems, it's very common place for various users to be endowed with the control over bots (role account) that can affect moderation tools like de-voice, kick/ban, Etc.; This way, members of the well being team don't have to like, or be publicly perceived, as mean-ole moderators, while those tools are definitely at their disposal.

If someone has a problem with that, they really do still have a fiduciary duty to the project to engage in conflict resolution anyway - as a member of the project.

In the end, one team goes away in the merge and the other name remains. Functionally, the result is the same and the team is actionable - the way it was until yesterday is more like the time when i worked at a grocery store, was on the loading dock and a seven foot high stack of milk started to fall over in the trailer bed of thev delivery truck...

I simply took two steps and put my hand on the stack, setting it upright again.

The trucker started screaming at me because i had one foot in the trailer saying, "if you're not a Teamster you don't cross that line!!!!"

Really, a stupid mentality that I was definitely not going to honor - that milk would have exploded all over my loading dock and he would have just driven away leaving me to mop all that milk up. Ridiculous.

Anyway, that's about all I've got 🙂

I'm way over my weekly donation budget for the project and have to spend time on other priorities.

> In an ideal world, everyone should be part of the well-being team and try to defuse tension when it arises. > And some members should be trusted with moderation powers (whose attention must be sought, when problems arise). Eliminating the (what some might think) foreboding sounding "moderation" team would science machiv achieve this very result. It was (IIRC) after all, a member of the *Well-Being* Team that did intervene with moderation powers, while @circlebuilder , being the sole member of the *moderation* team, that stepped into perform the duties of the *well-being* team, in their absence, and as a member of the community at large in that perfect scenario. Eliminating one of the teams reduces the bloat and bureaucratic creep while softening the conjurations of trigger happy ego driven children as moderators when a member of the friendly sounding team intervenes. 🙂 There's also another common approach used - that if a role account. I'm not sure how ummm, Gapodo I think it is, intends to introduce as additional moderation tools in Gitea/Forgejo, but in chat systems, it's very common place for various users to be endowed with the control over bots (role account) that can affect moderation tools like de-voice, kick/ban, Etc.; This way, members of the *well being* team don't have to like, or be publicly perceived, as mean-ole moderators, while those tools are definitely at their disposal. If someone has a problem with that, they really do still have a fiduciary duty to the project to engage in conflict resolution anyway - as a member of the project. In the end, one team goes away in the merge and the other name remains. Functionally, the result is the same and the team is actionable - the way it was until yesterday is more like the time when i worked at a grocery store, was on the loading dock and a seven foot high stack of milk started to fall over in the trailer bed of thev delivery truck... I simply took two steps and put my hand on the stack, setting it upright again. The trucker started screaming at me because i had one foot in the trailer saying, "if you're not a **Teamster** you don't cross that line!!!!" Really, a stupid mentality that I was definitely not going to honor - that milk would have exploded all over my loading dock and he would have just driven away leaving me to mop all that milk up. Ridiculous. Anyway, that's about all I've got 🙂 I'm way over my weekly donation budget for the project and have to spend time on other priorities.

oliverpool commented 2023年02月03日 23:11:34 +01:00

At the end I think we are just bike-shedding between 3 possibilites:

1. Well-being and moderation teams stay as-is.

2. One "merged team" with moderation power.

3. One "merged team" with different roles (some members with moderation powers, some without).

In case 2. team members are expected (as the rest of the community) to first attempt defuse tension before taking moderation steps. The well-being team is then just a shadow/non-official team of other community member who also attempt to defuse tension (but with no accountability.

I think it would be great if other people who were engaged in the given teams (@gusted and @circlebuilder) could also give a feedback.

I would prefer let the people who are ready to commit to a team, choose their preferred form of organization (as far as I know only @dachary indicated willingness to apply to any of the "new" teams).

At the end I think we are just bike-shedding between 3 possibilites: 1. Well-being and moderation teams stay as-is. 2. One "merged team" with moderation power. 3. One "merged team" with different roles (some members with moderation powers, some without). In case 2. team members are expected (as the rest of the community) to first attempt defuse tension before taking moderation steps. The well-being team is then just a shadow/non-official team of other community member who also attempt to defuse tension (but with no accountability. I think it would be great if other people who were engaged in the given teams (@gusted and @circlebuilder) could also give a feedback. I would prefer let the people who are ready to commit to a team, choose their preferred form of organization (as far as I know only @dachary indicated willingness to apply to any of the "new" teams).

circlebuilder commented 2023年02月04日 05:41:49 +01:00

Given there is no enthusiastic showing of hands to join well-being/moderation team, a 2a) option is:

• Every team has lightweight moderation/well-being responsibilities. Just do their best to keep things civil and foster a culture of inclusion and friendly atmosphere.
• For escalation there's a Well-being team. It should have more than one person, preferable >2 people.

Given there is no enthusiastic showing of hands to join well-being/moderation team, a 2a) option is: - Every team has lightweight moderation/well-being responsibilities. Just do their best to keep things civil and foster a culture of inclusion and friendly atmosphere. - For escalation there's a Well-being team. It should have more than one person, preferable >2 people.

Ghost commented 2023年02月04日 09:16:53 +01:00

Since I wrote in this discussion that I'm willing to be part of the Well-Being team, I wrote down my application.

Once the Well-Being team is dissolved, re-formed and has legitimacy, there can be a followup discussion to merge it with the moderation team, creating new roles in every team etc.

Trying to address the two topics (legitimacy and structure) at the same time is going to be significantly more difficult and while the discussion goes on the temporary Well-Being team will keep existing with no legitimacy, which is a concrete governance problem that is worth resolving in a timely manner.

Since I wrote in this discussion that I'm willing to be part of the Well-Being team, I [wrote down my application](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/issues/152). Once the Well-Being team is dissolved, re-formed and has legitimacy, there can be a followup discussion to merge it with the moderation team, creating new roles in every team etc. Trying to address the two topics (legitimacy and structure) at the same time is going to be significantly more difficult and while the discussion goes on the temporary Well-Being team will keep existing with no legitimacy, which is a concrete governance problem that is worth resolving in a timely manner.

tallship commented 2023年02月04日 10:02:08 +01:00

Once the Well-Being team is dissolved, re-formed and has legitimacy, there can be a followup discussion to merge it with the moderation team, creating new roles in every team etc.
Trying to address the two topics (legitimacy and structure) at the same time is going to be significantly more difficult and

That doesn't really seem to make any sense at all - we're having that discussion right now, and resolution appears to be imminent.

Undue and superfluous bureaucracy is what we're trying to trim, and to a large degree, what put us in this predicament in the first place.

If it makes you feel better just change there topic name.

There is no good reason to inject complicated, unnecessary procedure into a simple matter.

> Once the Well-Being team is dissolved, re-formed and has legitimacy, there can be a followup discussion to merge it with the moderation team, creating new roles in every team etc. Trying to address the two topics (legitimacy and structure) at the same time is going to be significantly more difficult and That doesn't really seem to make any sense at all - we're having that discussion right now, and resolution appears to be imminent. Undue and superfluous bureaucracy is what we're trying to trim, and to a large degree, what put us in this predicament in the first place. If it makes you feel better just change there topic name. There is no good reason to inject complicated, unnecessary procedure into a simple matter.

Ghost commented 2023年02月04日 11:25:02 +01:00

...we're having that discussion right now, and resolution appears to be imminent.

The discussion about dissolving and re-creating a Well-Being team as set in the topic of this issue is simple, was planned from the very beginning of Forgejo and can be concluded within a short time in accordance to the decision process that is the outcome of the first work on governance.

There is another, more complicated, discussion that will take a much longer time and is worth having: what is a Well-Being team? Should it be separated from the Moderation team? How do people who belong to the Well-Being team relate to having power over other members of the community? And probably more.

Let's keep this issue about its initial focus.

> ...we're having that discussion right now, and resolution appears to be imminent. The discussion about dissolving and re-creating a Well-Being team as set in the topic of this issue is simple, was planned from the very beginning of Forgejo and can be concluded within a short time in accordance to the decision process that is the outcome of the first work on governance. There is another, more complicated, discussion that will take a much longer time and is worth having: what is a Well-Being team? Should it be separated from the Moderation team? How do people who belong to the Well-Being team relate to having power over other members of the community? And probably more. Let's keep this issue about its initial focus.

Ghost commented 2023年02月04日 11:48:38 +01:00

@Gusted would you like to apply for being part of the Well-Being team? I think you had a positive and soothing influence since Forgejo was created and it would be a pleasure participating in this team with you, should I be accepted.

@Gusted would you like to apply for being part of the Well-Being team? I think you had a positive and soothing influence since Forgejo was created and it would be a pleasure participating in this team with you, should I be accepted.

fsologureng commented 2023年02月04日 15:32:26 +01:00

Ok. Apparently the discussion about merging the teams will be handled as off-topic.

I would like to know if there is anything else that has been decided since the beginning of Forgejo as an untouchable agreement until after the launch of Governance, because the existence of the Well-being team is apparently one of them.

Personally, the decision to dissolve the Well-being team is not something I would propose to solve a moderation problem that has arisen. It was not a problem of legitimacy of the people in charge, it was a management problem because, @tallship and I have insisted, there is a collision of responsibilities that produce an inadequate response to the problems and confusion in the expectations of the members.

Therefore my vote is no. I do not agree with a dissolution.
If Loïc wants to resign, ok, I can't go against that, but he is clearly the best person to support the team.
For me it is unpresentable to give legitimacy to a role that had coordination failures, without public agreement about the remediation of the mistakes or ways to prevent them and leave things as they were, but now more immovable than before.
And I clarify, to avoid misunderstandings, I do not have a judgment against the legitimacy of the people in charge so far, I have a judgment against the structure of these 2 teams and their role.

Ok. Apparently the discussion about merging the teams will be handled as off-topic. I would like to know if there is anything else that has been decided since the beginning of Forgejo as an untouchable agreement until after the launch of Governance, because the existence of the Well-being team is apparently one of them. Personally, the decision to dissolve the Well-being team is not something I would propose to solve a moderation problem that has arisen. It was not a problem of legitimacy of the people in charge, it was a management problem because, @tallship and I have insisted, there is a collision of responsibilities that produce an inadequate response to the problems and confusion in the expectations of the members. Therefore my vote is no. I do not agree with a dissolution. If Loïc wants to resign, ok, I can't go against that, but he is clearly the best person to support the team. For me it is unpresentable to give legitimacy to a role that had coordination failures, without public agreement about the remediation of the mistakes or ways to prevent them and leave things as they were, but now more immovable than before. And I clarify, to avoid misunderstandings, I do not have a judgment against the legitimacy of the people in charge so far, I have a judgment against the structure of these 2 teams and their role.

Ghost commented 2023年02月04日 17:09:43 +01:00

There seems to be a confusion about two separate issues:

• The legitimacy of members the Well-Being team (this issue is about that)
• The existence of a Well-Being team

There has been no agreement (let alone an untouchable one) about the existence of the Well-Being team. There has been no requirement about when the debate regarding the relevance of its existence should start (it can start right now, in a separate issue).

This issue does not relate to any past event related to the mission of the Well-Being team. It is in line with the ongoing work related to the legitimacy of the release team (which could also be subject to an agreement of its own because it was never agreed upon).

The legitimacy of the team members is a concrete problem that needs solving because it has been an explicit promise made to the Forgejo community: teams will be dissolved when a decision process is in place so that the members can be appointed.

Therefore my vote is no. I do not agree with a dissolution.

Given this explanation if you are still against the dissolution of the team, it will become a blocker. I do not want to resign from the team, I applied to be a member after it is dissolved, did you notice this?

There seems to be a confusion about two separate issues: * The legitimacy of members the Well-Being team (this issue is about that) * The existence of a Well-Being team There has been no agreement (let alone an untouchable one) about the existence of the Well-Being team. There has been no requirement about when the debate regarding the relevance of its existence should start (it can start right now, in a separate issue). This issue does not relate to any past event related to the mission of the Well-Being team. It is in line with the ongoing work related to the legitimacy of the release team (which could also be subject to an agreement of its own because it was never agreed upon). The legitimacy of the team members is a concrete problem that needs solving because it has been an explicit promise made to the Forgejo community: teams will be dissolved when a decision process is in place so that the members can be appointed. > Therefore my vote is no. I do not agree with a dissolution. Given this explanation if you are still against the dissolution of the team, it will become a blocker. I do not want to resign from the team, I applied to be a member after it is dissolved, did you notice this?

tallship commented 2023年02月04日 19:01:27 +01:00

My position is also no.

I do not agree with a dissolution.

Further, fill the team with whomever you want.

My position is also no. I do not agree with a dissolution. Further, fill the team with whomever you want.

Ghost commented 2023年02月04日 19:45:02 +01:00

Would you agree to a dissolution that only happens when and if there are enough applicants approved by the Forgejo community to establish a new Well-Being team immediately after it is dissolved?

I struggle to understand why you would object to having a Well-Being team whose members are approved by a decision of the Forgejo community and insist on keeping a Well-Being team that has no legitimacy.

Could you please clarify that?

Would you agree to a dissolution that only happens when and if there are enough applicants approved by the Forgejo community to establish a new Well-Being team immediately after it is dissolved? I struggle to understand why you would object to having a Well-Being team whose members are approved by a decision of the Forgejo community and insist on keeping a Well-Being team that has no legitimacy. Could you please clarify that?

Ghost commented 2023年02月05日 01:05:46 +01:00

I acknowledge there are strong objections to the existence of the Well-Being team as it currently is and withdraw my proposal to legitimize its members. As suggested, the question of the existence of the Well-Being can now be discussed in a separate issue.

I acknowledge there are strong objections to the existence of the Well-Being team as it currently is and withdraw my proposal to legitimize its members. As suggested, the question of the existence of the Well-Being can now be discussed in a separate issue.