Minutes:Mastodon Seed Council Initial Meeting: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

Minutes:Mastodon Seed Council Initial Meeting (view source)

Revision as of 15:41, 2 December 2022

6,444 bytes added , 15:41, 2 December 2022

m

no edit summary

Courtney.dean

8

edits

@@ Line 162: / Line 162: @@
 <blockquote>
 * '''Code of Conduct:''' what will be allowed and importantly what will not be tolerated at any cost? #moderation  #code-of-conduct
-</blockquote>
+</blockquote>Notes/Discussion:
+* '''Jonny:''' To start -- have a few folks who are willing to do mod shifts
+** + add more fields into registration list, are you willing to be a mod?, etc.
+* '''Brad:''' A good place for a few working groups
+** '''Jonny:''' immediate response team -- mods who are deleting stuff / addressing problematic user (beneficial w/ folks in so many time zones)
+*** and async stuff -- conflict resolution, community opps
+*** managing interactions w/ other instances
+* How does NM do this now:
+** CoC form that people can fill out -- this is what happened, sent to group who look at the issues
+** Whistle blower policy - if we think the governance is a bad actor. Can report the board to Nick or report Nick to the board
+** On discord - they had support tickets
+* '''Ogul:''' who is the person/people we turn to if there's something wrong w/ moderation -- a mega mod is not democracy (works w/ NM but this would not be in line w/ larger open collective governance), how could we bring this back to the people
+** '''Brad:''' if there are problems btwn people there could be issues that they don't want to be made public, this is why NM has a select group of people
+** '''Jonny:''' This is exactly why cooperative governance is great, it's always possible for people to make a proposal or to change mod practices. The bylaws are the only thing that govern what's possible/impossible. Would always be possible to raise an issue with the mods themselves or how complaints are handled in general.
+* Are we going to be a free speech instance ---
+** '''Jonny:''' No.... but there are academic instances that are free speech instances
+*** Becomes an issue when someone takes a problematic post that's then boosted in NM instance, we then become bad actor.
+*** It's very difficult to know what's loosely moderated, can be hard for mods
+** '''Manisha:''' Open Collective states they are not a neutral entity -- there are nonnegotiable
+'''Decision:''' we are not interested in being Free Speech platform
 ==== Inter-instance ====
@@ Line 177: / Line 199: @@
 Since this is the major sink of labor for an instance, how will be divide this among the members?
-=== Maintenance ===
+Notes/Discussion:
+* '''Nick:''' Is it volunteers? is there a working group? are people paid?
+* '''Jonny:''' Having required mod hours doesn't work well - hard to distribute, some folks cannot be exposed to a ton of triggering topics all the time
+* '''Manisha:''' could be a rotating working group, trying to mitigate burnout. When folks have done enough, can bring in a new set of mods.
+* '''Jordan:''' size will be variable, mods themselves will know that best. we aren't similar enough to existing instances to know
+** '''Nick:''' there's a bunch of factors to what makes it hard (pictures, etc.)
+* '''Natalie:''' is mods just breaks of CoC or are folks going through content and filtering stuff out?
+** Jonny: usually mods will just be getting the reports submitted and reviewing those.
+** Natalie: are there any AIs that can prefilter --
+*** Manisha: there is some hast tags used between mods so if there's an instance that's acting in bad faith that can be shared quickly
+*** Jonny: there are tools that can be built in the filter out -- could be cool to experiment with
+* '''Ogul:''' reports come into a list and mods pick and choose what they deal with?
+** Jonny: that could be one way to go about it -- is this just a post issue? is it a pattern? are multiple users in a similar group doing the same things?
+** Ogul: Open up all reports to all mods could be helpful -- mods can pick what they are able to do and then mark resolved by so and so
+*** Could also be a limit to the number of issues solved per mod to avoid burnout and to help provide shared labor
+*** It should be possible to link issues to one another -- usually not individual issues #moderation
+**** Can repurpose notes section for this! Can also use wiki to share info.
+=== Maintenance -- Tabled - we can handle for now and will have tech meeting later ===
 ''5m''
@@ Line 189: / Line 231: @@
 === Finances ===
-''10m''
+''<s>10m</s> 5 mins''
 <blockquote>
@@ Line 199: / Line 241: @@
 ** Would NM be able to donate to the OC as well? help nonprofit law oh no
 * or... ?
-</blockquote>
+</blockquote>Notes/Discussion:
+* '''Jordan:''' if we are aiming to be available to everyone equally and we have a relatively large org associated (NM), then we should be carful asking for money.
+** We could ask for companies or well established PIs to pay, but not the general user.
+** Conferences could be expected to pay into using the instance (NM could use this instead of Discord)
+* '''Jonny:''' agree -- joining should not be a financial burden, but having the instance largely paid for by a single entity creates it's own risk. Even a nominal donation via a sliding scale can create a little more funding, good to have more funding that just the bare minimum. Everyone can feel like they own the instance.
+** '''Jordan:''' 2 or 3 users donating $5 a month is a surplus <br />
 == Proposals ==
@@ Line 225: / Line 272: @@
 * '''Discord''' - This could also be slack if there are strong feelings, but Discord not requiring you to pay some absolutely preposterous amount to have a large chatroom that can see further than 90 days in the past is the main reason here. Ideally we would move to Matrix eventually, but for getting started, it's very easy to send every member a link to a discord to join.
-* '''[[Loomio]]''' - Loomio is a forumlike medium with great support for voting and decisionmaking. It's built by co-opers for co-opers and we use it and love it over at social.coop. An alternative here might be Discourse but it doesn't have the same kind of support for decisionmaking in my experience, particularly when this is intended to be the governance board (rather than a general chat space).
+* '''[[Loomio]]''' - Loomio is a forum like medium with great support for voting and decisionmaking. It's built by co-opers for co-opers and we use it and love it over at social.coop. An alternative here might be Discourse but it doesn't have the same kind of support for decisionmaking in my experience, particularly when this is intended to be the governance board (rather than a general chat space).
 * '''[[Wiki]]''' - Here! This! Use this for the governing documents!
 Each new member would be asked to make accounts on all three of these during onboarding :)
-</blockquote>
+</blockquote>Discussion/Notes:
+* '''Nick:''' agree w/ the need for all of these. Comment to slack -- we get nonprofit discount so it's very cheap to have unlimited messages. It would be good to keep a closeness to NM mission.
+** '''Jonny:''' challenges to existing NM slack -- if we are expecting several thousand people in the instance, they would then have access to all channels. The onboarding/agreements will be different. The chat should be governed by the Mastason members as well.
+*** '''Nick:''' yes, fair. we do have multiple workspaces. We can create new workspaces, could make it easier for people to move btwn them.
+**** '''Jordan:''' agree we should try to keep tools consistent. if we think we do need a very separate tool, then we might need to ask the question again of if it should be separate from NM.
+**** '''Jonny:''' focus is really to make sure we can run the instance
+**** '''Manisha:''' -- likes the support tickets on discord
+Decision: Lets bring this discussion back into the slack channel - no firm decision made
 === Bootstrapping Process ===
@@ Line 242: / Line 298: @@
 ** Divide up first month mod duty
 ** Create discord & loomio
+** Preliminary CoC -- let people know it will change!
 * In order to approve governance
 ** Encourage proposals!
 ** Find a time to have first all-instance meeting
+*** Provide proposals/topics ahead of time so folks can add
 ** Decide on governance structure v1.0
-</blockquote>
+</blockquote>Discussion/Notes:
+* Jordan: time is important, if we can do it in 2 weeks instead of a month -- they would help adoption
+GOAL: get baseline CoC this weekend and have folks invited by Monday or Tuesday -- need to check with other folks
 == Action Items ==
@@ Line 252: / Line 315: @@
 Assigned responsibilities to carry on the decisions made in the meeting :)
+Jonny: Legality on 501c3 and lobbying/politics -- does this matter? - to check to w/ legal working group
+Manisha: Emails are holding us back right now -- Manisha will follow up w/ Kate
+Jordan: Should expand server size
+Jonny & Manisha (to start): Identify first round of mods - Konrad might be helpful with this
+Nick: look at legality of being a fiscal sponsor -- Jonny will connect Nick to social.coop
 == Future Discussions ==