[AGREEMENT] dachary application to the Well-Being team #152

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

Application

I propose to be accountable for the Forgejo Well-Being and become part of the the Well-Being team.

1. If you agree, please simply add a 👍 to this issue.
2. If you disagree or have reservations, please write them down here, in a comment.

This application follows the Forgejo decision making process. It is still new: do not hesitate to voice any concern you may have.

Pledge

I will proactively read all messages in all Forgejo spaces and react as soon as possible to defuse tension.

I acknowledge that I have no authority to redact messages or exclude people.

Background

I have been involved in the Well-Being team since the inception of Forgejo. There has been a few cases where tension began to show and I did my best to help defuse the tension.

I have been able to read all messages in all Forgejo spaces.

On one occasion I observed a behavior that went against the code of conduct and deferred to the moderation team.

In 2020 I began an experimentation of a similar Well-Being team in the context of the CHATONS collective. The experiment was successful (see the conclusion report) and became a permanent team, with a rolling team of applications (see the 2023 application for an example)).

### Application I propose to be accountable for the Forgejo Well-Being and become part of the [the Well-Being team](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/src/branch/readme/TEAMS.md#well-being). 1. If you agree, please simply add a 👍 to this issue. 2. If you disagree or have reservations, please write them down here, in a comment. This application follows the Forgejo [decision making process](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/src/branch/readme/DECISION-MAKING.md). It is still new: do not hesitate to voice any concern you may have. ### Pledge I will proactively read all messages in all Forgejo spaces and react as soon as possible to defuse tension. I acknowledge that I have no authority to redact messages or exclude people. ### Background I have been involved in the Well-Being team since the inception of Forgejo. There has been a few cases where tension began to show and I did my best to help defuse the tension. I have been able to read all messages in all Forgejo spaces. On one occasion I observed a behavior that went against the code of conduct and deferred to the moderation team. In 2020 I began an [experimentation of a similar Well-Being team](https://forum.chatons.org/t/proposition-dexperimentation-une-equipe-de-mediation/1571) in the context of the [CHATONS](https://chatons.org) collective. The experiment was successful (see the [conclusion report](https://forum.chatons.org/t/bilan-et-dissolution-de-lequipe-de-mediation-experimentale/2228)) and became a permanent team, with a rolling team of applications (see the [2023 application](https://forum.chatons.org/t/2023-candidature-pour-rejoindre-l-equipe-de-mediation-vincent-peugnet/4538) for an example)).

fsologureng commented 2023年02月05日 00:35:04 +01:00

I regret of my afirmation made yesterday with respect to Löic ability to be a good integrant of the Well-Being team.

My reasons:

1. There was an incident not well managed by both the Well-being team and the Moderation team. This is a fact.

2. I expected consecuences about that fact furthermore a couple of days of silence. After that expectation my direct interpretation about the action of dissolve the W-B team was as a measure oriented to repair the fault. Until here, there is no other actions proposed to improve the procedure applied in the questioned event more than invite to talk, which is good, but not enough. There are improvements to the platform which are urgent to do. There are changes in the procedure and delimitation of roles, because, as @tallship remembered, in the mentioned incident the roles was interchanged between teams.

3. If the reasons for dissolve the W-B team are not the above stated, then my concern addressed in the issue of dissolution about the legitimacy of the team, at least should be addressed following our recent Decision making agreement which states: When people are against a proposal, try to guess and look for what's important to them, which need/concern/value they're defending. Löic defends his point applying the status quo order and addressing my concern as off-topic; The team exists and there is a promise to the community in order to a dissolution, with higher priority than the dissolution of the Contribution team, with higher priority than to do a good delimitation of teams.

4. So, Loïc doesn't whilling to pospone the dissolution of the Well-Being team, call by itself the dissolution of the team as a member of the Well-Being team, addressed a legitim concern about legitimacy of the team in question as off-topic and defends his position against other member of the community calling them a blocker.

5. The first, if not the only one, rule of mediation is that one must never can be part in dispute of the mediated situation.

I regret of my [afirmation made yesterday with respect to Löic ability to be a good integrant of the Well-Being team](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/issues/146#issuecomment-791447). My reasons: 1) There was an incident not well managed by both the Well-being team and the Moderation team. This is a fact. 2) I expected consecuences about that fact furthermore a couple of days of silence. After that expectation my direct interpretation about the action of dissolve the W-B team was as a measure oriented to repair the fault. Until here, there is no other actions proposed to improve the procedure applied in the questioned event more than invite to talk, which is good, but not enough. There are improvements to the platform which are urgent to do. There are changes in the procedure and delimitation of roles, because, as @tallship [remembered](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/issues/146#issuecomment-790828), in the mentioned incident the roles was interchanged between teams. 3) If the reasons for dissolve the W-B team are not the above stated, then my concern addressed in the issue of dissolution about the legitimacy of the team, at least should be addressed following [our recent Decision making agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/src/branch/readme/DECISION-MAKING.md) which states: *When people are against a proposal, try to guess and look for what's important to them, which need/concern/value they're defending*. Löic defends his point applying the status quo order and addressing my concern as off-topic; The team exists and there is a promise to the community in order to a dissolution, with higher priority than the dissolution of the Contribution team, with higher priority than to do a good delimitation of teams. 4) So, Loïc doesn't whilling to pospone the dissolution of the Well-Being team, call by itself the dissolution of the team as a member of the Well-Being team, addressed a legitim concern about legitimacy of the team in question as off-topic and defends his position against other member of the community calling them a blocker. 5) The first, if not the only one, rule of **mediation** is that one must never can be part in dispute of the mediated situation.

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

I withdraw my application as a member of the Well-Being team. It can only work if there is a consensus and since you object @fsologureng, I respect your point of view.

I withdraw my application as a member of the Well-Being team. It can only work if there is a consensus and since you object @fsologureng, I respect your point of view.