Have a source-of-truth public list of Forgejo Organization members #147

fr33domlover commented 2023年02月01日 14:01:58 +01:00

I believe it's really important for transparency, clarity and trust (among team members and between team and wider community), that we maintain a reliable public list of all members on the Forgejo Organization.

PROPOSAL: At https://codeberg.org/forgejo, mark everyone's membership as visible. Including "meta" users like forgejo-ci. And have an agreement, that whenever we add a new person to the organization, their membership is set to be visible.

Anyone has concerns about this proposal? Or a different idea that you believe will serve us better?

If so, please comment :) If not, please mark your membership as visible.

I believe it's really important for transparency, clarity and trust (among team members and between team and wider community), that we maintain a reliable public list of all members on the Forgejo Organization. PROPOSAL: At <https://codeberg.org/forgejo>, mark everyone's membership as visible. Including "meta" users like forgejo-ci. And have an agreement, that whenever we add a new person to the organization, their membership is set to be visible. Anyone has concerns about this proposal? Or a different idea that you believe will serve us better? If so, please comment :) If not, please mark your membership as visible.

Ryuno-Ki commented 2023年02月01日 14:30:37 +01:00

I do object.

It's one thing to encourage visible membership. But there might be reason we are not aware of that will make people prefer not to be listed publicly.

In the sense of an inclusive community I demand that the membership not to be enforced to be visible.

That has a second effect as well:
Do we want to exclude people not on Codeberg from our community?
In what regard would Codeberg be better than GitHub then? (As central hub).
What about those that will go out and speak in our favour? But don't interact with git-based tooling in any way.

Federation would allow us to work across instances. I'm very much in favour to see this reflected in how we define our community.

I do object. It's one thing to encourage visible membership. But there might be reason we are not aware of that will make people prefer not to be listed publicly. In the sense of an inclusive community I demand that the membership not to be enforced to be visible. That has a second effect as well: Do we want to exclude people not on Codeberg from our community? In what regard would Codeberg be better than GitHub then? (As central hub). What about those that will go out and speak in our favour? But don't interact with git-based tooling in any way. Federation would allow us to work across instances. I'm very much in favour to see this reflected in how we define our community.

fsologureng commented 2023年02月01日 14:46:21 +01:00

In the sense of an inclusive community I demand that the membership not to be enforced to be visible.

Can you explain why inclusiveness is affected by enforcing visibility? Taken in account we are talking about logins, not necessarily known persons.

That has a second effect as well:
Do we want to exclude people not on Codeberg from our community?

The proposal speaks literally about Forgejo Organization, no about community. Community includes users, instance admins, even Gitea because is part of the ecosystem.

> In the sense of an inclusive community I demand that the membership not to be enforced to be visible. Can you explain why inclusiveness is affected by enforcing visibility? Taken in account we are talking about logins, not necessarily known persons. > > That has a second effect as well: > Do we want to exclude people not on Codeberg from our community? The proposal speaks literally about Forgejo Organization, no about community. Community includes users, instance admins, even Gitea because is part of the ecosystem.

Ryuno-Ki commented 2023年02月01日 14:59:14 +01:00

Can you explain why inclusiveness is affected by enforcing visibility?

Sure.

A friend of mine belongs to a minority. I'm asked to not give away the sex. It would affect the life of that person if every organisation would display the membership of that person. Therefore there is contributions because of a sense of belonging. But the profile is private.

I myself have organisations on GitHub I'm member of but won't show up there publicly.

Taken in account we are talking about logins, not necessarily known persons.

Logins as in profiles? I'm not sure what are you referring to. A person can have multiple profiles. There are technical accounts as well.

The proposal speaks literally about Forgejo Organization, no about community.

Good point. So organisation (I prefer BE) as in the concept of what is coded in Gitea / Forgejo. The second effect is less of importance then.

> Can you explain why inclusiveness is affected by enforcing visibility? Sure. A friend of mine belongs to a minority. I'm asked to not give away the sex. It would affect the life of that person if every organisation would display the membership of that person. Therefore there is contributions because of a sense of belonging. But the profile is private. I myself have organisations on GitHub I'm member of but won't show up there publicly. > Taken in account we are talking about logins, not necessarily known persons. Logins as in profiles? I'm not sure what are you referring to. A person can have multiple profiles. There are technical accounts as well. > The proposal speaks literally about Forgejo Organization, no about community. Good point. So organisation (I prefer BE) as in the concept of what is coded in Gitea / Forgejo. The second effect is less of importance then.

fsologureng commented 2023年02月01日 15:12:29 +01:00

Taken in account we are talking about logins, not necessarily known persons.

Logins as in profiles? I'm not sure what are you referring to. A person can have multiple profiles.

That's the point, the proposal asks to put profiles in public status, not necessarily people.

By the way, talking about sex is a misnomer when talking about inclusivity. A commonly used inclusive term is gender, but it is not part of the profile, so I still don't see a good reason for the objection.

> > Taken in account we are talking about logins, not necessarily known persons. > > Logins as in profiles? I'm not sure what are you referring to. A person can have multiple profiles. That's the point, the proposal asks to put profiles in public status, not necessarily people. By the way, talking about *sex* is a misnomer when talking about inclusivity. A commonly used inclusive term is gender, but it is not part of the profile, so I still don't see a good reason for the objection.

Ryuno-Ki commented 2023年02月01日 15:16:44 +01:00

A commonly used inclusive term is gender

I'm aware of the difference. My word was chosen accordingly.

but it is not part of the profile

It might be deduced from the nickname by drawing associations to other online presences.

> A commonly used inclusive term is gender I'm aware of the difference. My word was chosen accordingly. > but it is not part of the profile It might be deduced from the nickname by drawing associations to other online presences.

crystal commented 2023年02月01日 22:26:38 +01:00

I think @Ryuno-Ki's objections are reasonable and I share similar reservations.

I think @Ryuno-Ki's objections are reasonable and I share similar reservations.

Ghost commented 2023年02月02日 10:22:11 +01:00

I believe it's really important for transparency, clarity and trust (among team members and between team and wider community), that we maintain a reliable public list of all members on the Forgejo Organization.

The https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/src/branch/readme/TEAMS.md is the source of truth of all people with a role in Forgejo.

It was created because the way the Forgejo teams membership is implemented does not provide a convenient way to display who is where. This has been discussed already a few weeks ago.

Is there is a specific problem with how this file is maintained at the moment?

> I believe it's really important for transparency, clarity and trust (among team members and between team and wider community), that we maintain a reliable public list of all members on the Forgejo Organization. The https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/src/branch/readme/TEAMS.md is the source of truth of all people with a role in Forgejo. It was created because the way the Forgejo teams membership is implemented does not provide a convenient way to display who is where. This has been discussed already a few weeks ago. Is there is a specific problem with how this file is maintained at the moment?

Ryuno-Ki commented 2023年02月02日 13:13:47 +01:00

This has been discussed already a few weeks ago.

I'm catching up with the last two months, so pardon me for not being aware of this.

> This has been discussed already a few weeks ago. I'm catching up with the last two months, so pardon me for not being aware of this.

Ghost commented 2023年02月02日 14:15:55 +01:00

@Ryuno-Ki my comment was for @fr33domlover's benefit. I did not expect you knew about that discussion.

@Ryuno-Ki my comment was for @fr33domlover's benefit. I did not expect you knew about that discussion.

KaKi87 commented 2023年02月03日 01:38:50 +01:00

Is there is a specific problem with how this file is maintained at the moment?

I do not believe so, therefore I'm in favor of closing this issue as already resolved.

I demand that the membership not to be enforced to be visible.

Membership is visible no matter what : as soon as one authored anything (reaction, comment, issue, commit, PR), one is visible.

The list, as abovementioned, is about transparency.

> Is there is a specific problem with how this file is maintained at the moment? I do not believe so, therefore I'm in favor of closing this issue as already resolved. > I demand that the membership not to be enforced to be visible. Membership is visible no matter what : as soon as one authored anything (reaction, comment, issue, commit, PR), one is visible. The list, as abovementioned, is about transparency.

fr33domlover commented 2023年02月23日 23:32:24 +01:00

Summary of situation:

• Concerns
  • Protecting privacy
  • Excluding people without Codeberg accounts
• I made changes to the decision-making guide, and now having a full public list isn't as important as I thought it'd be when I opened this issue
• TEAMS.md can serve as the go-to list

So, DECISION: Not changing anything. Non-visible membership remains possible. If a trust challenge arises in the future, we can go back to this topic.

Summary of situation: - Concerns - Protecting privacy - Excluding people without Codeberg accounts - I made changes to the decision-making guide, and now having a full public list isn't as important as I thought it'd be when I opened this issue - TEAMS.md can serve as the go-to list So, DECISION: Not changing anything. Non-visible membership remains possible. If a trust challenge arises in the future, we can go back to this topic.

forgejo/meta