Archived
15
23
Fork
You've already forked meta
6

Split meta in discussions and governance #197

Closed
opened 2023年03月17日 09:23:50 +01:00 by earl-warren · 8 comments

As of today, the meta repository is split in two:

The meta repository is dedicated to resolving a public dispute between Forgejo community members. The background of this urgent action can be found in this issue.

As of today, the meta repository is split in two: * Discussions are moved to https://codeberg.org/forgejo/discussions * Governance decisions and documentation are moved to https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance The meta repository is dedicated to resolving a public dispute between Forgejo community members. The background of this urgent action can be found [in this issue](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/issues/187#issuecomment-842486).
Contributor
Copy link

Given that those two repos were part of forgejo-contrib before how do we want to handle decisions that were made there.

I personally feel they are illegitimate unless they receive another round of approval by the community now they are in the forgejo space.

Given that those two repos were part of forgejo-contrib before how do we want to handle decisions that were made there. I personally feel they are illegitimate unless they receive another round of approval by the community now they are in the forgejo space.

@Ryuno-Ki to be more precise on your comment, only one decision was made there, as far as I can tell:

Both other decisions were cherry-picked from meta:

Or did I miss something?

How do you want to re-handle the Bannishement decision? I see several options:

  • open an issue to confirm the ban
  • let the decision be taken by the moderation team (once elected)
@Ryuno-Ki to be more precise on your comment, only one decision was made there, as far as I can tell: - https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/issues/6 Bannishement of a troll (cross-posted here https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/issues/194, but not discussed there) Both other decisions were cherry-picked from `meta`: - https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/issues/7 Add Privacy as Forgejo value: cherry-pick from https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/pulls/178 - https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/issues/8 Add Accessibility as Forgejo value: cherry-pick from https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/pulls/179 Or did I miss something? How do you want to re-handle the Bannishement decision? I see several options: - open an issue to confirm the ban - let the decision be taken by the moderation team (once elected)
Contributor
Copy link

Now there's someone I talked to about this and got asked not to mention that the conversation happened (which puts me in a tricky situation. Would love to avoid these otherwise I can't agree to discuss things in private).

I haven't checked either repository (because my notification counter was already large enough). If there are only a handful of issues: great!

The ban issue was cross-posted, so there's awareness of it. I'd defer to the moderation team for further handling here.

The other two issues are cherry-picked, i.e. originated in meta. Here some comparison would be handy to see whether new arguments were brought up that require attention. Then one of the issue could be declared as duplicate of the other and closed.

Now there's someone I talked to about this and got asked not to mention that the conversation happened (which puts me in a tricky situation. Would love to avoid these otherwise I can't agree to discuss things in private). I haven't checked either repository (because my notification counter was already large enough). If there are only a handful of issues: great! The ban issue was cross-posted, so there's awareness of it. I'd defer to the moderation team for further handling here. The other two issues are cherry-picked, i.e. originated in meta. Here some comparison would be handy to see whether new arguments were brought up that require attention. Then one of the issue could be declared as duplicate of the other and closed.

I checked them and cherry-picked some of the changes. Now I'll move over to these repositories and it will feel great to have some quiet productive time in the following days. There is much to do 🚀

I checked them and cherry-picked some of the changes. Now I'll move over to these repositories and it will feel great to have some quiet productive time in the following days. There is much to do 🚀
Contributor
Copy link

I take then this issue is going to be closed soon?

I take then this issue is going to be closed soon?

@Ryuno-Ki my notification counter is also far to high 😄

I just manually looked at the closed issues and pull requests: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/issues?q=&type=all&sort=&state=closed&labels=&milestone=0&assignee=0&poster=0

I take then this issue is going to be closed soon?

I think that your concern has been addressed.
How long should we wait to see if other people have concerns? Or should they just open a new issue in that case?

I would recommend closing this issue in 7 days after the last concern has been addressed.

@Ryuno-Ki my notification counter is also far to high 😄 I just manually looked at the closed issues and pull requests: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/issues?q=&type=all&sort=&state=closed&labels=&milestone=0&assignee=0&poster=0 > I take then this issue is going to be closed soon? I think that your concern has been addressed. How long should we wait to see if other people have concerns? Or should they just open a new issue in that case? I would recommend closing this issue in 7 days after the last concern has been addressed.
Ryuno-Ki added the due date 2023年03月24日 2023年03月17日 17:51:01 +01:00
Contributor
Copy link

7 days sounds reasonable. I set a due date.

7 days sounds reasonable. I set a due date.

Closing as agreed. Posted the following note in the repository description to avoid confusion:

ARCHIVE - discussions now happen at https://codeberg.org/forgejo/discussions and governance agreements at https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance

There has only been one confusion in the past week, it is not a significant problem.

Closing as agreed. Posted the following note in the repository description to avoid confusion: ARCHIVE - discussions now happen at https://codeberg.org/forgejo/discussions and governance agreements at https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance There has only been one confusion in the past week, it is not a significant problem.
Commenting is not possible because the repository is archived.
No Branch/Tag specified
readme
No results found.
Labels
Clear labels
[Decision] Building proposal(s)
We're in a decision-making process, buiding one or more proposals to address the shared aim based on the criteria
[Decision] Gathering criteria
We're in a decision-making process, gathering criteria, considerations and needs
[Decision] Integrating concerns
We're in a decision-making process, working with a proposal, trying to integrate concerns and create modifications/support such that the proposal works for everyone
Accessibility
Relates to Accessibility (a11y) of product, project and process.
Agreement proposal
Forgejo agreement proposal, following a discussion
Communication
Relates to all channels, social media, website, blog posts.
Election
Process of appointing a person into a role or team (if choosing people just for a specific one-time task, use the Entrustment label)
Entrustment
Process of choosing/approving specific people to do a critical/high-impact one-time task (if choosing people for an ongoing role/team, use the Election label)
Governance
Relates to processes, procedures and decision-making.
Meeting
An upcoming team meeting
User research - Accessibility
Requires input about accessibility features, likely involves user testing.
User research - Blocked
Do not pick as-is! We are happy if you can help, but please coordinate with ongoing redesign in this area.
User research - Community
Community features, such as discovering other people's work or otherwise feeling welcome on a Forgejo instance.
User research - Config (instance)
Instance-wide configuration, authentication and other admin-only needs.
User research - Errors
How to deal with errors in the application and write helpful error messages.
User research - Filters
How filter and search is being worked with.
User research - Future backlog
The issue might be inspiring for future design work.
User research - Git workflow
AGit, fork-based and new Git workflow, PR creation etc
User research - Labels
Active research about Labels
User research - Moderation
Moderation Featuers for Admins are undergoing active User Research
User research - Needs input
Use this label to let the User Research team know their input is requested.
User research - Notifications/Dashboard
Research on how users should know what to do next.
User research - Rendering
Text rendering, markup languages etc
User research - Repo creation
Active research about the New Repo dialog.
User research - Repo units
The repo sections, disabling them and the "Add more" button.
User research - Security
User research - Settings (in-app)
How to structure in-app settings in the future?
Milestone
Clear milestone
No items
No milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No items
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
No assignees
3 participants Due date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

2023年03月25日

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference
forgejo/meta#197
Reference in a new issue
forgejo/meta
No description provided.
Delete branch "%!s()"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?