[Proposal] Well-being space: public/private? #169

circlebuilder commented 2023年02月23日 08:57:07 +01:00

I'll formulate this according to my feedback on decision-making, see comment (just as an example of how that might work).

Decision proposal

Background

A public chatroom has been created by @dachary for discussing matters of project Well-being.

Hereby my opinion on working-in-public / radical transparency versus handling Wellbeing conflicts..

• Wellbeing chatroom cannot be public and have people just jump in and out at will and see all history.
• Wellbeing team needs space to deliberate, inform on conflict background, form their opinions.
• Doing this publicly may trigger more heat and controversy, can make conflict worse than should be.
• Doing this all publicly is a continual risk to handle involved people's privacy.

Doing community work I have seen cases where all-public Wellbeing doesn't work / is undesirable:

• Most active Well-being team member singled out as "enemy" while only doing their work.
• Fact-finding on perpetrator leads to animosity, prejudice, presumptions (mob justice).
• Perpetrator is found out to have mental well-being issues, which is now out in the open.

There are analogies here with Justice, where defendent/lawyer, victim/prosecutor, jury and judges each have time + private space to get the facts straight and prepare their case.

Proposal

• Wellbeing team uses an invite-only, encrypted Matrix chatroom.
  • Team invites people involved in a conflict as needed.
  • These people cannot see chat history, but the team members can.
• In the chatroom the conflict is handled, until a satisfactory outcome is reached.
• Conflict is reported to a Wellbeing log in a matter-of-fact, friendly manner.
  • The people involved in the conflict get to see the report first.
  • They may suggest changes and are asked for their approval of the text.
• The report is published, and the invited members leave the chatroom again.
  • If needed the Wellbeing can refer to history to clarify and quote should the need arise.

Impact

• Privacy of all people involved can be guaranteed.
• Heat is taken out of the project, removing risk of 'mob justice' and escalation.
• Only those affected discuss in reasonable, polite ways, guided by Wellbeing team.
• Sufficient information becomes available to the community when a case is handled.
• The report is supported by the entire Wellbeing team, not in name of individual members.
• The report of a case is matter-of-fact and input to process improvement if needed.
• The report becomes part of project history, and Transparency track record.

Who is affected?

• The Wellbeing team. The procedure is likely simpler and clearer than it is now.
• Those affected in the conflict. Get a safe space where they can breathe, explain, and resolve things.

Work items

• Re-configure the Well-being chatroom.
• Document the Wellbeing procedure.
• Designate a location for the Wellbeing log.
• Create a template for Wellbeing reports.

Who can vote?

• Anyone who takes note of the Decision Proposal can put up their vote.

I'll formulate this according to my feedback on decision-making, see [comment](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/issues/168#issuecomment-811470) (just as an example of how that might work). ## Decision proposal ### Background A public chatroom has been created by @dachary for discussing matters of project Well-being. Hereby my opinion on working-in-public / radical transparency versus handling Wellbeing conflicts.. - Wellbeing chatroom cannot be public and have people just jump in and out at will and see all history. - Wellbeing team needs space to deliberate, inform on conflict background, form their opinions. - Doing this publicly may trigger more heat and controversy, can make conflict worse than should be. - Doing this all publicly is a continual risk to handle involved people's privacy. Doing community work I have seen cases where all-public Wellbeing doesn't work / is undesirable: - Most active Well-being team member singled out as "enemy" while only doing their work. - Fact-finding on perpetrator leads to animosity, prejudice, presumptions (mob justice). - Perpetrator is found out to have mental well-being issues, which is now out in the open. There are analogies here with Justice, where defendent/lawyer, victim/prosecutor, jury and judges each have time + private space to get the facts straight and prepare their case. ### Proposal - Wellbeing team uses an invite-only, encrypted Matrix chatroom. - Team invites people involved in a conflict as needed. - These people cannot see chat history, but the team members can. - In the chatroom the conflict is handled, until a satisfactory outcome is reached. - Conflict is reported to a Wellbeing log in a matter-of-fact, friendly manner. - The people involved in the conflict get to see the report first. - They may suggest changes and are asked for their approval of the text. - The report is published, and the invited members leave the chatroom again. - If needed the Wellbeing can refer to history to clarify and quote should the need arise. ### Impact - Privacy of all people involved can be guaranteed. - Heat is taken out of the project, removing risk of 'mob justice' and escalation. - Only those affected discuss in reasonable, polite ways, guided by Wellbeing team. - Sufficient information becomes available to the community when a case is handled. - The report is supported by the entire Wellbeing team, not in name of individual members. - The report of a case is matter-of-fact and input to process improvement if needed. - The report becomes part of project history, and Transparency track record. ### Who is affected? - The Wellbeing team. The procedure is likely simpler and clearer than it is now. - Those affected in the conflict. Get a safe space where they can breathe, explain, and resolve things. ### Work items - [ ] Re-configure the Well-being chatroom. - [ ] Document the Wellbeing procedure. - [ ] Designate a location for the Wellbeing log. - [ ] Create a template for Wellbeing reports. ### Who can vote? - Anyone who takes note of the Decision Proposal can put up their vote.

Ghost commented 2023年02月23日 10:11:23 +01:00

@Gusted @circlebuilder please delete the Well Being chatroom. I am no longer part of the well being team and the rationale for creating this chatroom no longer stands.

@Gusted @circlebuilder please delete the Well Being chatroom. I am no longer part of the well being team and the rationale for creating this chatroom no longer stands.

Ghost commented 2023年02月23日 10:41:27 +01:00

I think it is ultimately for the people taking an active role to define how they prefer to operate. It does not sit well with me when people who are not involved take the lead in defining a framework that they will not use themselves. I would rather discuss with the members of the moderation team, if they are so inclined, and help them when they ask.

I think it is ultimately for the people taking an active role to define how they prefer to operate. It does not sit well with me when people who are not involved take the lead in defining a framework that they will not use themselves. I would rather discuss with the members of the moderation team, if they are so inclined, and help them when they ask.

circlebuilder commented 2023年02月23日 11:18:51 +01:00

Imho a proposal is something wholly different than "taking the lead". This is just an open issue in the tracker that can be handled by any person most appropriate to do so. I hope that Forgejo will facilitate anyone to at least give their input.

Imho a proposal is something _wholly_ different than "taking the lead". This is just an open issue in the tracker that can be handled by any person most appropriate to do so. I hope that Forgejo will facilitate anyone to at least give their input.

Ghost commented 2023年02月23日 12:10:16 +01:00

I heavily disagree with the proposal and will explain if and when it is accepted or discussed by people taking action.

I heavily disagree with the proposal and will explain if and when it is accepted or discussed by people taking action.

Ryuno-Ki commented 2023年02月23日 12:20:27 +01:00

I was a moderator on the freeCodeCamp Discord a few years ago.
There the team defined a process where each disputed flag of a member triggered the creation of a new room with that person being invited. The moderators (= the well-being team if you want) had access to that channel as well. Noone else did.
After resolution of the conflict the room was archived (the disputed account removed and the room set to read-only).

This allowed for a track-record in case of repeating flagging.

I was a moderator on the freeCodeCamp Discord a few years ago. There the team defined a process where each disputed flag of a member triggered the creation of a new room with that person being invited. The moderators (= the well-being team if you want) had access to that channel as well. Noone else did. After resolution of the conflict the room was archived (the disputed account removed and the room set to read-only). This allowed for a track-record in case of repeating flagging.

tallship commented 2023年02月23日 14:13:19 +01:00

This is an excellent, well thought out, and agreeable proposal IMO.

It's has my full support, and thank you for opening this issue and bringing forward this proposal @circlebuilder

Not a Discord fan here @Ryuno-Ki , and I preferred to remain with FCCs Gitter and XMPP facilities which still work well, yet I imagine a very similar methodology is used for the XMPP rooms with Free Code Camp.

The similarities between how you did things there in discord and circlebuilders proposal are quite similar, with the archiving for record retention apparently a common aspect for many longer running and responsibility managed organizations.

@dachary There is no need to delete the existing health and well being room - the proposal is to retool it to accommodate forward movement of the teams process. perhaps that group of people will later adopt a similar method with temporary rooms that are eventually archived the way FCC did it, but there are big differences between the simplicity with which one can merely create a new and temporary "Channel" (in discord parlance) within a Guild (what so-called Discord "servers" were originally called), and the several methodical steps involved when creating a "Room" in Matrix. it's not difficult at all, but it's a little non-trivial, so when the Forĝejo moderators need to address those well being matters they have a vehicle ready to go from which they can also coordinate in the meantime if necessary.

There's also no reason for us to engage in public floggings by further exposure to humiliation of individuals involved in disputes that boil over.

I think it is ultimately for the people taking an active role to define how they prefer to operate.

You are almost correct. It is ultimately up the the members of any of the teams to decide how they will operate - but only insofar as the members of the community have given them license to do so, and it is ALWAYS ultimately up to the members of the community to decide parameters under which we grant that license.

It does not sit well with me when people who are not involved take the lead in defining a framework that they will not use themselves.

The community does use that framework - we created that framework. It is a tool that we use, like any other, and it exists at our pleasure -to serve our needs as we, the community, see fit for it to do so.

@circlebuilder , if it is alright with you (at this time), I would like to propose an amendment to your proposal.

• That the well being and moderator teams be merged, abolishing the moderator team.

This has the effect of softening the "sound" of the team that performs mitigation and more stern measures they already possess. In the three most recent 'incidents', the well being team had to act with their moderation privileges anyway - they are moderators, they have been using elevated moderation privileges, and in the first incident at least, the lone, so-called "moderator" (you) had to intervene to mitigate instead of the well being team, which actually themselves subsequently engaged in those elevated moderation privileges.

It's a bloated, lethargic, bureaucratic construct that pretends that the roles are not distinct from each other, as had been repeatedly demonstrated in real use case scenarios, and everyone perceives the well being team as moderators anyway.

In fact, the actual role of a moderator in real life is to do exactly what the well being team here at Forĝejo claims as it's sole Domain - to mitigate.

If you aren't comfortable, with that amendment to your proposal here (because, after all, it's your proposal), I can just go ahead and open the pending and as yet unopened "decision issue" that has hitherto been waiting since the "discussion issue" was somewhat abruptly closed just when discussions were approaching a point where it could have been decided one way or another efficiently, creating yet another layer of bureaucratic procedure that was IMO, unwarranted.

I can, when creating the issue, reference the relevant comments/proposals in that discussion here and here.

If you're not okay with my requested amending of your proposal here that is okay, but I feel that it will save a more than trivial amount of time and effort that could be avoided here and now.

⛵

.

This is an excellent, well thought out, and agreeable proposal IMO. It's has my full support, and thank you for opening this issue and bringing forward this proposal @circlebuilder Not a Discord fan here @Ryuno-Ki , and I preferred to remain with FCCs *Gitter* and *XMPP* facilities which still work well, yet I imagine a very similar methodology is used for the XMPP rooms with Free Code Camp. The similarities between how you did things there in discord and circlebuilders proposal are quite similar, with the archiving for record retention apparently a common aspect for many longer running and responsibility managed organizations. @dachary There is no need to delete the existing health and well being room - the proposal is to retool it to accommodate forward movement of the teams process. perhaps that group of people will later adopt a similar method with temporary rooms that are eventually archived the way FCC did it, but there are big differences between the simplicity with which one can merely create a new and temporary **"Channel"** (in discord parlance) within a *Guild* (what so-called Discord "servers" were originally called), and the several methodical steps involved when creating a *"Room"* in Matrix. it's not difficult at all, but it's a little non-trivial, so when the Forĝejo moderators need to address those well being matters they have a vehicle ready to go from which they can also coordinate in the meantime if necessary. There's also no reason for us to engage in *public floggings* by further exposure to humiliation of individuals involved in disputes that boil over. > ***I think it is ultimately for the people taking an active role to define how they prefer to operate.*** You are almost correct. It is ultimately up the the members of any of the teams to decide how they will operate - ***but only insofar as the members of the community have given them license to do so***, and it is ALWAYS *ultimately* up to the members of the community to decide parameters under which we grant that license. > ***It does not sit well with me when people who are not involved take the lead in defining a framework that they will not use themselves.*** The community *does* use that framework - we created that framework. It is a tool that we use, like any other, and it exists at our pleasure -to serve our needs as we, the community, see fit for it to do so. @circlebuilder , if it is alright with ***you*** (at this time), I would like to propose an amendment to your proposal. * **That the well being and moderator teams be merged, abolishing the moderator team.** This has the effect of softening the "sound" of the team that performs mitigation and more stern measures they already possess. In the three most recent 'incidents', the well being team had to act with their moderation privileges anyway - they are moderators, they have been using elevated moderation privileges, and in the first incident at least, the lone, so-called "moderator" (you) had to intervene to mitigate instead of the well being team, which actually themselves subsequently engaged in those elevated moderation privileges. It's a bloated, lethargic, bureaucratic construct that pretends that the roles are not distinct from each other, as had been repeatedly demonstrated in real use case scenarios, and everyone perceives the well being team as moderators anyway. In fact, the actual role of a moderator in real life is to do exactly what the well being team here at Forĝejo claims as it's sole Domain - ***to mitigate***. If ***you*** aren't comfortable, with that amendment to your proposal here *(because, after all, it's your proposal)*, I can just go ahead and open the pending and as yet unopened **"decision issue"** that has hitherto been waiting since the **"discussion issue"** was somewhat abruptly closed just when discussions were approaching a point where it could have been decided one way or another efficiently, creating yet another layer of bureaucratic procedure that was IMO, unwarranted. I can, when creating the issue, reference the relevant comments/proposals in that discussion [here](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/issues/146#issuecomment-790888) and [here](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/issues/146#issuecomment-791029). If you're not okay with my requested amending of your proposal here that is okay, but I feel that it will save a more than trivial amount of time and effort that could be avoided here and now. ⛵ .

fsologureng commented 2023年02月23日 17:12:16 +01:00

I have to support @tallship's motion. We have just witnessed, once again, the ambiguity of attributions between the well-being team and the moderation team. The definition of the scope and remit of both teams should be defined before this proposal because it is based on it.

I have to support @tallship's motion. We have just witnessed, once again, the ambiguity of attributions between the well-being team and the moderation team. The definition of the scope and remit of both teams should be defined before this proposal because it is based on it.

tallship commented 2023年02月23日 18:22:27 +01:00

Oh!

In light of the (well written) proposal here: forgejo/forgejo#421 (comment)

it's probably best for need to withdraw my request for @circlebuilder to amend this issue.

The two issues together achieve the same result, the second one in it's own merit without complicating this one, so that they can each be considered independently.

just this past hour, an esteemed member of our community endured some rather vitriolic treatment, and the only reason I mention that here is because once again, the distinctions between the well-being and moderation teams were conflated in working to triage and tend to the matter.

Regardless of what any published documentation says to the contrary, there is, in reality, no demarcation between them.

Thanks goes out to them for their prompt action to intercede.

Please withdraw my request to amend your proposal here Arnold, as I will support that in the form of the newly presented item above instead 🙂

⛵

.

Oh! In light of the (well written) proposal here: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/421#issuecomment-811789 it's probably best for need to withdraw my request for @circlebuilder to amend this issue. The two issues together achieve the same result, the second one in it's own merit without complicating this one, so that they can each be considered independently. just this past hour, an esteemed member of our community endured some rather vitriolic treatment, and the only reason I mention that here is because once again, the distinctions between the well-being and moderation teams were conflated in working to triage and tend to the matter. Regardless of what any published documentation says to the contrary, there is, in reality, no demarcation between them. Thanks goes out to them for their prompt action to intercede. Please withdraw my request to amend your proposal here Arnold, as I will support that in the form of the newly presented item above instead 🙂 ⛵ .

circlebuilder commented 2023年02月24日 05:56:42 +01:00

Thank you @fsologureng for creating #170

@tallship: Please withdraw my request to amend your proposal here

I was about to propose creating a separate issue anyway, conform the more agile aproach proposed in the Agile project tracks #151 issue. That keeps individual issues more actionable and easier to close after they are treated.

Thank you @fsologureng for creating #170 > @tallship: Please withdraw my request to amend your proposal here I was about to propose creating a separate issue anyway, conform the more agile aproach proposed in the [Agile project tracks #151](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/issues/151) issue. That keeps individual issues more actionable and easier to close after they are treated.