Hi, Ludovic Courtès <[email protected]> writes:
> 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. The co-maintainers ([email protected]) are documented there, but we're not the only people doing moderation on the mailing list for example (there are a few trusted old timers as well). It's been working well, so I'm hesitant to change it, but wouldn't be against it. > 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. This sounds reasonable to me. -- Thanks, Maxim
