Fedora Moderation Guidelines #392

Closed
opened 2022-03-02 20:55:51 +00:00 by riecatnor · 15 comments

Overview
Fedora is in many spaces and places! Something that has been discussed by various groups over time has been the creation of a set of Fedora Moderation Guidelines that we can use across all of our chat/forum spaces. It also came up many times while developing the new Code of Conduct and continues to come up while managing actual CoC incidents.

The idea is to design a useful tool for moderators to draw upon to ensure cohesive moderation across the various platforms where Fedora participates. The plan is to do this with direct input from the current moderators of these spaces, as well as the Council and the Mindshare Committee.

Scope

  • Work with current moderators to see what they are using, what has worked, what hasn't? Do we have some guidelines already in existence that we can adapt?
  • Collaborate with current moderators to ensure the guidelines developed are usable, relevant, and in line with Fedora values
  • Work with the Mindshare Committee to develop guidelines and review drafts
  • Work with the Council to finalize and approve the Moderation Guidelines

Timeline
The timeline for this is a bit vague currently as I am just kicking off the idea and there is much input to be gathered. I would like to see it entirely complete by the end of 2022 or Q1 of 2023.

Next Steps
I will be working to make sure our list of accounts [0] is up to date, gather any current guidelines in existence, and begin communicating with stakeholders. Similar to the Code of Conduct, this work will also involve research into what other communities are doing, consultation with experts, and conversations with various stakeholders, including the legal entity behind Fedora.

[0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Marketing_social_networks

**Overview** Fedora is in many spaces and places! Something that has been discussed by various groups over time has been the creation of a set of Fedora Moderation Guidelines that we can use across all of our chat/forum spaces. It also came up many times while developing the new Code of Conduct and continues to come up while managing actual CoC incidents. The idea is to design a useful tool for moderators to draw upon to ensure cohesive moderation across the various platforms where Fedora participates. The plan is to do this with direct input from the current moderators of these spaces, as well as the Council and the Mindshare Committee. **Scope** - Work with current moderators to see what they are using, what has worked, what hasn't? Do we have some guidelines already in existence that we can adapt? - Collaborate with current moderators to ensure the guidelines developed are usable, relevant, and in line with Fedora values - Work with the Mindshare Committee to develop guidelines and review drafts - Work with the Council to finalize and approve the Moderation Guidelines **Timeline** The timeline for this is a bit vague currently as I am just kicking off the idea and there is much input to be gathered. I would like to see it entirely complete by the end of 2022 or Q1 of 2023. **Next Steps** I will be working to make sure our list of accounts [0] is up to date, gather any current guidelines in existence, and begin communicating with stakeholders. Similar to the Code of Conduct, this work will also involve research into what other communities are doing, consultation with experts, and conversations with various stakeholders, including the legal entity behind Fedora. [0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Marketing_social_networks

I've created a topic on Fedora Discussion for this ticket.

Please keep this ticket focused. Discuss there, and record votes and decisions here. Thanks!

I've created a [topic on Fedora Discussion](https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/fedora-council-tickets-ticket-392-fedora-moderation-guidelines/37328) for this ticket. Please keep this ticket focused. Discuss there, and record votes and decisions here. Thanks!

Work ongoing to update list of social networks. Draft communication going out to owners soon. Additional conversations with stakeholders upcoming.

Work ongoing to update list of social networks. Draft communication going out to owners soon. Additional conversations with stakeholders upcoming.

Hi there, I'd like to remind y'all that live chat moderation (matrix/irc/discord/telegram) is nothing like async discussion moderation (forums/reddit) so it's virtually impossible to be effective with a single set of guidelines in both types of communities.

Discord follows these: https://rhea.dev/articles/2017-04/Moderation-guidelines

Hi there, I'd like to remind y'all that live chat moderation (matrix/irc/discord/telegram) is nothing like async discussion moderation (forums/reddit) so it's virtually impossible to be effective with a single set of guidelines in both types of communities. Discord follows these: https://rhea.dev/articles/2017-04/Moderation-guidelines

I would have to agree with @rhea on the point about the difference in moderation styles between a forum and a chat. While the forum moderation works best in a more hands off "lazy" style, I always felt live chat moderation to be more of an active role, and even requiring greater moderator skills as it is seemingly more urgent at the moment of moderation.

I would have to agree with @rhea on the point about the difference in moderation styles between a forum and a chat. While the forum moderation works best in a more hands off "lazy" style, I always felt live chat moderation to be more of an active role, and even requiring greater moderator skills as it is seemingly more urgent at the moment of moderation.
Owner

This work ties into the strategy topic the council worked on during the hackfest, which will aim to improve our communication tooling, and having moderation guidelines that cover all of our platforms of communication is a good thing to have. @mattdm will take this ticket as part of that wider goal.

This work ties into the strategy topic the council worked on during the hackfest, which will aim to improve our communication tooling, and having moderation guidelines that cover all of our platforms of communication is a good thing to have. @mattdm will take this ticket as part of that wider goal.
Owner

Metadata Update from @amoloney:

  • Issue assigned to mattdm (was: riecatnor)
  • Issue priority set to: None (was: 1)
**Metadata Update from @amoloney**: - Issue assigned to mattdm (was: riecatnor) - Issue priority set to: None (was: 1)
Owner

@mattdm is no longer a member of Fedora Council. Therefore, I am unassigning this ticket and labeling as Needs Review so that we can identify a new owner.

@mattdm is no longer a member of Fedora Council. Therefore, I am unassigning this ticket and labeling as `Needs Review` so that we can identify a new owner.
Owner

Metadata Update from @jflory7:

  • Assignee reset
**Metadata Update from @jflory7**: - Assignee reset
Owner

Metadata Update from @jflory7:

  • Issue tagged with: Needs Review
**Metadata Update from @jflory7**: - Issue tagged with: Needs Review

Quick heads up: this is now being finalised by moderators on discussion.fp.o here. The first version will go live soon (but that doesn't mean it can't be updated later, of course).

https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/final-moderation-guideline-draft-7-day-freeze-for-final-review-discuss-here-then-final-poll/181189

Quick heads up: this is now being finalised by moderators on discussion.fp.o here. The first version will go live soon (but that doesn't mean it can't be updated later, of course). https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/final-moderation-guideline-draft-7-day-freeze-for-final-review-discuss-here-then-final-poll/181189
jflory7 self-assigned this 2026-03-03 20:22:47 +00:00

The Discourse/mod discussion related to this ticket takes place in a separated topic in discourse:

https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/the-council-approached-us-should-we-put-the-self-moderation-guidelines-under-their-umbrella-there-are-implications/183832

The topic mentioned above is already closed as it has fulfilled its purpose.

The Discourse/mod discussion related to this ticket takes place in a separated topic in discourse: https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/the-council-approached-us-should-we-put-the-self-moderation-guidelines-under-their-umbrella-there-are-implications/183832 The topic mentioned above is already closed as it has fulfilled its purpose.
Owner

@py0xc3 Could the Fedora Council have an official review of the final moderation guidelines before they go into full effect? Because of his historical ticket and the several years of CoC work that went into place before this ticket was opened, it would be nice to use this an opportunity to create a model that we could perhaps share across various other pockets of the Fedora community. We have collectively learned a lot about community moderation over the last few years. 😁

@py0xc3 Could the Fedora Council have an official review of the final moderation guidelines before they go into full effect? Because of his historical ticket and the several years of CoC work that went into place before this ticket was opened, it would be nice to use this an opportunity to create a model that we could perhaps share across various other pockets of the Fedora community. We have collectively learned a lot about community moderation over the last few years. 😁

Could the Fedora Council have an official review of the final moderation guidelines before they go into full effect?

Sure. But maybe it makes sense to emphasize first the discussion in the Discourse topic @jspaleta encouraged.

If the consensus will be "yes", the guidelines will be put under the umbrella of the council anyway (if I understood the intention of the proposal correctly).

If consensus will be "no", I guess it's still fine to have the council do a review.

That said, I think some Council members had been already invited to review in the preceding Discourse topics and some gave already feedback, and we might not wait too long, because at the moment we formally have no rules at all (the Docs team already put the old rules offline with the assumption we shortly have new ones available). That's not critical I guess, as the old rules were obsoleted and practically not used for long anyway (and I think many didn't even know they existed), but it still might be useful to bring this project to an end soon :-)

> Could the Fedora Council have an official review of the final moderation guidelines before they go into full effect? Sure. But maybe it makes sense to emphasize first the discussion in the [Discourse topic](https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/the-council-approached-us-should-we-put-the-self-moderation-guidelines-under-their-umbrella-there-are-implications/183832) @jspaleta encouraged. If the consensus will be "yes", the guidelines will be put under the umbrella of the council anyway (if I understood the intention of the proposal correctly). If consensus will be "no", I guess it's still fine to have the council do a review. That said, I think some Council members had been already invited to review in the preceding Discourse topics and some gave already feedback, and we might not wait too long, because at the moment we formally have no rules at all (the Docs team already put the old rules offline with the assumption we shortly have new ones available). That's not critical I guess, as the old rules were obsoleted and practically not used for long anyway (and I think many didn't even know they existed), but it still might be useful to bring this project to an end soon :-)

I think if the Council wants to do another (or a joint?) review, it should be done in parallel to the current process. The only thing that can change at this time is the name of the FAS group.

On one hand, I am not sure if the discussion will go into any direction, because I think people are exhausted from discussing. Parts of the topic had to be re-opened and re-discussed several times for a long time, and after some people of Council had provided already feedback and us having finally done a final poll and agreed that this topic is closed now, it is now asked again to discuss: while I generally like the idea of the proposal, I am not sure if we get any contribution to the discussion, and I do not want to make such a decision on myself, especially as I am not sure if the implications are understood (on both sides).

So if our repos are prepared and nothing comes up in the discussion in a week or so (maybe end of next week?), I would like to publish the rules as agreed earlier: at the moment, we have no rules to reference at all. I would like to keep this period as short as possible, and I currently see no value rising from further waiting once we have a working repo. I hope our forge group & repos are ready by the end of next week.

Keep in mind that the discussion can still go ahead, and shifting the rules from our "umbrella" to the Council can be then a second step: it might also mitigate one of the implications -> we can find out if the rules work or if there is immediate / time-critical need to adjust (we can do this more efficiently than the council), and once they have proven established and to work out, the Council might make them "global" to the community including the people not yet bound by the rules created by the Discussion Mod SIG. We still will have implications to evaluate, but that is not just a "one or the other" issue, but could be also "first one, then later the other".

I think if the Council wants to do another (or a joint?) review, it should be done in parallel to the current process. The only thing that can change at this time is the name of the FAS group. On one hand, I am not sure if the discussion will go into any direction, because I think people are exhausted from discussing. Parts of the topic had to be re-opened and re-discussed several times for a long time, and after some people of Council had provided already feedback and us having finally done a final poll and agreed that this topic is closed now, it is now asked again to discuss: while I generally like the idea of the proposal, I am not sure if we get any contribution to the discussion, and I do not want to make such a decision on myself, especially as I am not sure if the implications are understood (on both sides). So if our repos are prepared and nothing comes up in the discussion in a week or so (maybe end of next week?), I would like to publish the rules as agreed earlier: at the moment, we have no rules to reference at all. I would like to keep this period as short as possible, and I currently see no value rising from further waiting once we have a working repo. I hope our forge group & repos are ready by the end of next week. Keep in mind that the discussion can still go ahead, and shifting the rules from our "umbrella" to the Council can be then a second step: it might also mitigate one of the implications -> we can find out if the rules work or if there is immediate / time-critical need to adjust (we can do this more efficiently than the council), and once they have proven established and to work out, the Council might make them "global" to the community including the people not yet bound by the rules created by the Discussion Mod SIG. We still will have implications to evaluate, but that is not just a "one or the other" issue, but could be also "first one, then later the other".
Owner

As per the agreement from the Council meeting on Wednesday, June 3 2026, council have agreed that the discussion.fedoraproject.org moderation guidelines are fine to publish.

This ticket will now be closed.

Meeting log https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/meeting_matrix_fedoraproject-org/2026-06-03/fedora-council-meeting.2026-06-03-14.07.html

As per the agreement from the Council meeting on Wednesday, June 3 2026, council have agreed that the discussion.fedoraproject.org moderation guidelines are fine to publish. This ticket will now be closed. Meeting log https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/meeting_matrix_fedoraproject-org/2026-06-03/fedora-council-meeting.2026-06-03-14.07.html
Sign in to join this conversation.
No milestone
No project
No assignees
9 participants
Notifications
Due date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference
council/tickets#392
No description provided.