Hello,
Maxim Cournoyer <[email protected]> skribis:
> In general I agree transparency is nice but for moderation, I can see
> moderators preferring to meld in discussions without being tagged as
> such, to avoid needlessly altering the dynamic/attracting unnecessary
> attention.
>
> What do others think?
I think the moderation team has to be clearly identified so it can do
its job (responding to violation reports) and in fact, it’s already
clearly identified in ‘CODE-OF-CONDUCT’, and also to be accountable.
What I would suggest is:
1. to have a distinct moderation team with enforcing the code of
conduct as its sole mission;
2. to have a fixed-term mandate for moderation team members, with
rotation similar to what GCD 005 suggests for the release team;
3. to have the moderation team publish yearly “transparency reports”
with numbers (“we received X CoC violation complaints”).
That would bring clarity and could make it more sustainable in the long
term. There’s no rush because the maintainers have been doing a good
job (thanks!), but I think it would be good to make steps in that
direction.
WDYT?
Ludo’.
