supercollider
Creation of a moderation team to enforce the Code of Conduct
- Title: Creation of a moderation team
- Date proposed: 2024-06-16
- RFC PR: https://github.com/supercollider/rfcs/pull/22
Summary
The Code of Conduct states that in case of an incident the community organizers should be contacted, but currently it is not clear who these organizers are. This RFC proposes to let the community decide about a team of moderators/community organizers who then are open for consultation in case of an incident.
Motivation
The Code of Conduct states that a team of moderators should be contacted in case of a violation of said code, yet it is not clear
- if such a team exists,
- who these people are (are the forum moderators these moderators?),
- how to contact them in case of an incident,
- what jurisdiction they have (e.g. <scsynth.org>, github, ...) and
- what kind of power such a council could have.
Recently there have been situations which involved friction between different parties which led to violations of the code of conduct, and also to accusations against the community which must be taken serious. It therefore requires, in case such a conflict and accusation comes up, that an independent team can be consulted to evaluate the situation and take actions to de-escalate the situation and, if necessary, enforce counter-measurements based on the Code of Conduct.
Specification
-
Make the forum (and community beyond) aware of this RFC in order to obtain feedback on the procedure. As awareness is not targeted at a majority, this RFC would also not depend on a majority vote, but it should still be backed by a decent amount of support from within the community. Once the discussion about the procedure has been settled or stalled, the first step can start.
-
Have an open call for people who are willing to participate in such a team or council via a sticky post in the forum with a deadline of 4 weeks. It should be necessary that a person gets suggested by another person as a first step of representation of trust from within the community - the person has to accept this nomination within this thread. One person can nominate multiple people and is also invited to nominate an already nominated person as it can act as a relevant measurement of trust.
People are also invited in signaling that they would be interested in participating in such a team via this thread, though it would be up to the community to pick up this offer.
This is especially an invitation for people who want to contribute to SuperCollider but do not want to contribute via coding.
-
As the forum moderators are currently a trusted set of people (?) and the closest team we have to the proposed code of conduct moderators, they should present a team from the proposed persons within two week after the deadline of the suggestions has been met. An uneven number of members could avoid situations of a stalemate.
-
Create a sticky post in the forum on how this team can be contacted and who this team is. The council and forum moderators can put new people in charge, but they are advised to keep the backing from the community in mind. In case of problems with this team it should be settled and discussed via the forum or via an RFC.
This council should be contacted via <scsynth.org>, but could also be in charge of conflicts happening on other platforms such as GitHub.
Drawbacks
Who watches the watchmen is an intrinsic question of power structures - the transferring of power to this team can only happen if there is trust form the community in said council. In order to build trust the decisions should be as transparent as possible (upon request or via reports?) without exposing people in conflicts.
The council should also represent a diverse group of people - it is up for the community and forum moderators to get these people into these positions.
Also, although <scsynth.org> has become a semi-official place for SuperCollider communication, it is not a representative of the community. Yet, in contrast to other platforms, it is an open and community owned platform and therefore to be preferred for discussions such as creating a council.
The procedure is for maybe not the very best way of doing so, but the main motivation here is to obtain such a council in order to create a safer community.
Unresolved Questions
- Who creates the posts in the forum - the current moderators or the issuer of the RFC?
I'll post the initial RFC communique in the forum - please post it elsewhere as applicable as I am not around elsewhere.
Thanks for this @capital-G ! much overdue IMO! A few questions/thoughts:
Do you imagine that this team will be exclusive of current mods?
Are there other high-trust people who should be part of the selection process in step 2? There are for example Owners of the SC project who are not also moderators over at Discourse.
Also do you have any thoughts about what process the group, whether mods or mods+, should follow in step 2? I think it might be good to specify something explicitly...
Thank you! I think a code of conduct is not to be "enforced". It is the scale against which we may measure what is appropriate and what is not. So perhaps you could change the rfc to something like: "Creating a moderation team for community conflicts" ?
The Code of Conduct states that a team of moderators should be contacted in case of a violation of said code, yet it is not clear
- if such a team exists,
- who these people are (are the forum moderators these moderators?),
- how to contact them in case of an incident,
- what jurisdiction they have (e.g. <scsynth.org>, github, ...) and
- what kind of power such a council could have.
I have all these questions and more after what happened recently, with a member of this project plagiarizing my work and making several abusive comments toward me when attention was brought to this fact. The issue thread where this was documented has been deleted, indicating some sort of moderation decision occurred. However, I've received no communication about the incident, there's been no explanation for who deleted the issue and why, and it seems this project member is still active. This reads to me as an implicit endorsement of that behavior, which I find rather alarming.
As I've said before, I no longer wish to be involved with this project, but in this case I feel somewhat obligated to step in.
In the time I was on the project, there was never an official moderation team or process. There were a handful of active people with administrative permissions, who talked to one another and made decisions with varying levels of agreement and discussion.
In a now-deleted thread on <scsynth.org>, I noted that several years ago I've asked for this kind of transparency and process, for similar reasons given here: it creates a power imbalance which disadvantages newer community members and discourages reporting incidents, resulting in an unsafe environment. I also noted that the lack of support from other longstanding community members was a major reason as to why I no longer contribute to this project. From my perspective this is unchanged today.
This is sorely needed, even if it isn't perfect.
It might be worth setting a deadline for this request-for-comments, after which whatever state this is currently at gets rolled out.
Hi @mossheim I have deleted the thread, because I wanted to give everyone (that is everyone who wanted) a chance to reset and start anew. It may have been wrong towards you, I realised later, so my apologies here.
So yes, if we have a group of people who handles troubles (with due care) then that would have been a case for the team.
@telephon Interesting, that sounds very much like enforcing a code of conduct to me, which you have just said above you do not believe in.
I find your response to this situation extremely concerning. If you or one of your students were found to be plagiarizing work, would you also destroy the evidence and ask everyone who knew about it to "reset and start anew"?
Yes, it was wrong, sorry.
I didn't enforce a code of conduct, I was just acting out of (perhaps misled) compassion for both persons. I will do this differently in the future, but this is a learning process.
It's good to remember that – like development work – moderation is not a responsibility or duty that anyone has to the community. It is voluntary administrative and emotional labour. It is at times intense, unpleasant, and/or time consuming. Like all contributions to SuperCollider, it is time and effort individuals generously offer, bring different levels of knowledge and experience to, and inevitably will do with varying levels of success.
To be clear, I think we should recognise that it would be a mistake to view this work through an overly legalistic lens. It cannot work like that, as it will always lack the coverage, control, and democratic legitimacy that legal systems need. It is a form of community care.
- what jurisdiction they have (e.g. <scsynth.org>, github, ...) and
Realistically the reach of any group of moderators is limited to the platform(s) on which they have the necessary privileges. If someone starts an SC Facebook group etc. the proposed council would have no power to mediate on it. (Though of course we would hope and encourage all platforms to use the CoC.)
Even the amount of content produced on the forum and GH is too much for a small group of people to read through consistently. We are in practice dependant on people reporting. I would suggest against making a central group, as that adds admin, puts too much work onto one group, and doesn't respect the fact that different people may wish/feel able to moderate on one platform but not another.
- what kind of power such a council could have.
The SC community is broad, diverse, and has long tail of casual interaction. That makes democratic legitimacy almost impossible under the current situation. (That could change a bit if we had something like a foundation. That would be worth discussing, but would involve much broader questions of ownership and governance.) Practically as well as legitimately I think moderators can intervene on the platforms where they moderate. Anything wider is impossible to enforce in practice anyway.
- if such a team exists,
- who these people are (are the forum moderators these moderators?),
Again the moderators can be specific to each platform though there can be overlap of course!
- how to contact them in case of an incident,
Most platforms provide decent tools to report and moderate problematic content, e.g. Github has similar tools to Discourse. We should just use them rather than invent something central, which will create more work and bureaucracy. I recognise that that hasn't always happened, but it can change.
How to report should be highlighted in platform appropriate ways and places. e.g. sticky posts on the forum are a very good idea! Again we haven't always done this. There has already been some discussion from forum mods about documenting moderation procedures more clearly for transparency.
My 2 cents anyway...
Also, although <scsynth.org> has become a semi-official place for SuperCollider communication, it is not a representative of the community. Yet, in contrast to other platforms, it is an open and community owned platform
Is it community owned? What does that mean? AFAIK it has been ultimately controlled by one person. That person has been wonderfully open and supportive in my experience, but there are definitely challenges with funding, etc.
I think the forum has been a very good thing, and for sure is an appropriate place to discuss such things, but it demonstrates how issues of control are not clear cut or straightforwardly resolvable through procedures.
This is all just incredibly disappointing, and I'm glad I'm no longer involved in this project. Regarding the RFC, for what it's worth I fully support the initiative.
I have no experience of this, but...
How about two tiers.
Platform specific moderators, who deal with smaller issues. Not addressed in this RFC.
And a council who looks at serious code of conduct issues and recommends outcomes, but only when asked.
This way, if a small dispute happens on a platform, it can be handled in place quickly with little bureaucracy. The mechanism of this is up to the platform. However, if this is more serious issue, or the parties involved, or the platform moderators wish, they may ask the council for their opinion, which must be publicly published, but isn't binding. Platforms do not have to allow this, but it should be stated whether or not they will be referring to the council in serious cases, or allow escalation.
The council only has to meet when such serious issues arise, at the request of the platform moderators. The council can also refuse an issue if they deem it trivial and something the platform should have dealt with (this should be a public statement though). I don't think this adds that much bureaucracy as they should seldom meet?
The council then, are more like consultants on the code-of-conduct.
How about two tiers.
Platform specific moderators, who deal with smaller issues. Not addressed in this RFC.
And a council who looks at serious code of conduct issues and recommends outcomes, but only when asked.
So IIUC the council would be a sort 'Supreme Court' that issues non-binding opinions on conflicts anywhere in the SC-verse?
How about this: We make an effort to get more and different people involved as moderators on the main platforms. I think that would go a long way to improving things, as bandwidth is for sure a major issue. At the same time we have an understanding that moderators can approach those on another platform for another opinion in those cases where it seems necessary? We're essentially talking about an advisory role anyway, yes?
That seems more sustainable than some sort of elite panel that would be rarely called upon and ultimately have no practical way to implement decisions.
How about this: We make an effort to get more and different people involved as moderators on the main platforms.
I think some structure is required. Recently there was an incident on the forum where a mod temporarily banned a member. After an outcry this was reversed and a sort of mea culpa was issued - @scztt said that the moderator in question had acted wrongly - and that was where it was left. And per @mossheim a serious conflict involving perhaps a mod took place here on GitHub (I have no personal knowledge of this conflict).
So at this time moderators work only at their own discretion - there is no structure or clarity. What should mods do in cases where its not clear how to act? If we have an issue are we supposed to pick one moderator and PM them? And if one of the offenders was in fact a moderator but we don't know which? Without the type of team contemplated in the RFC these conflicts are either unresolved or play out in public which is discouraging to say the least.
On the other hand, perhaps there is already a de facto, informal and non-public moderation council - but after my 5-6 years in the community (and I do read almost every post) I'm quite unclear who exactly is in it and who is not!
Regarding the Supreme Court idea - I would favor a more engaged group if indeed the labor is available. I think there are low-intensity issues that might benefit from discussion.
I think the RFC is a great starting point -Maybe it could be refined (see my questions above). But I would support it as is. I also agree with @JordanHendersonMusic that we would do well to limit the time for consideration. There have been calls for a more concrete process from @jrsurge and others and I think we should respond positively.
We made a point some months ago to work toward an open call for new moderators, which I and some others have been meaning to do for a long time. I haven't had the capacity to follow through with this, but I think it's absolutely essential and I fully support this. Any assistance we could get with the logistical realities of organizing this would be INCREDIBLY helpful, as I think we're in a state right now where none of the nominal moderators of the forum have full capacity be 100% present all of the time when things come up.
I disagree with "enforcement" terminology or an enforcement-based approach / "court" based approaches. There have been nearly zero cases in the history of the scsynth focum where moderation action was required that were a clear-cut case of X-violation-triggers-Y-rule - every one of them had some level of ambiguity, care, and delicate social / emotional labor to resolve. It is not a matter of voting or clear cut application of the law - rather, the real role here is one that requires taking on difficult and sometimes unpleasant communication, carefully watching conversations and observing action, building consensus, and watching/following up on those actions (sometimes for a span of months or years).
I would argue that anyone making decisions about moderation / CoC things should be embedded in the above actions, as these are the true work and the real material of moderation - and we desperately need more energy for these roles. I don't think it's realistic or helpful to imagine some kind of parallel structure here - both in terms of people-power to do the actual work (which is a lot), nor recognition of what the real work is.
I think we can keep this simpler: we have an open process to allow new people to join the moderation team, as well a process for future rotation. With these fresh voices, we clarify decision-making processes and policies, and then post them publicly. I have some concrete notes and steps to take on this documented in the aftermath of the incident a few months ago - if we can formalize some version of this RFC, I would love some help getting the ball rolling on it.
Finally - decision-making is currently consensus based, not voting based or procedural. This is imperfect and there are many things to be improve about it, but I would advocate for holding on hard to a consensus-based model over anything else. This is an open-source and open community space - it's important that for critical/concrete decisions everyone be on board, or at a minimum not have a strong objection. I would feel incredibly uncomfortable moving ahead with a serious e.g. CoC violation relation action if there were several other people who strongly disagreed, even if they were a minority - and, at least for myself, I would be uncomfortable in a community where e.g. moderators were regularly taking action on issues where there was no consensus.
I think some structure is required.
There is structure(s). What is being proposed is adding a new advisory layer. I'm just saying I think it would be more effective to getting the existing ones functioning better, and procedures more clear.
I think some structure is required. Recently there was an incident on the forum where a mod temporarily banned a member.
As someone involved in the moderation of that incident I can tell you with some confidence that the existence of a council would not have prevented that event, nor really aided I think in its resolution. As I tried to point out above, moderation is a social process, not an exact science. People will make mistakes.
@scztt said that the moderator in question had acted wrongly - and that was where it was left.
That is not true. As a result of this, there was a long and very detailed response, that came out of in depth discussions amongst the mod team about how moderation could be working better on that platform: https://scsynth.org/t/suspension-retrospective/9039 It is also the case that the moderator who made the block is no longer in that role (through their own choice rather than any action imposed upon them).
So at this time moderators work only at their own discretion
It has happened on occasion that moderators have taken unilateral action, but I think on the forum at least there is recognition that should not be the case. Again the tools help: If you flag a post on the forum all moderators will see the flag and can follow the process.
What should mods do in cases where its not clear how to act?
Consult the other moderators. In my experience this happens.
If we have an issue are we supposed to pick one moderator and PM them?
Use the platform tools. On the forum that means flag the post. GH has a reporting mechanism. We should use that rather than private messages if we want an open moderation process. A flag by the way can be a query rather than an accusation. The mechanism could be better signposted.
And if one of the offenders was in fact a moderator but we don't know which?
Moderators should absolutely not moderate their own content. On the forum for example this is not prevented by technical means, but would be visible to the entire moderation team.
Without the type of team contemplated in the RFC these conflicts are either unresolved or play out in public which is discouraging to say the least.
I agree it's discouraging. One of the advantages of the forum system is the hiding functionality. Posts can be automatically unhidden after editing. Since the forum mod team have been focussing on this mechanism I have seen a number of posts get hidden as they were a bit aggressive and written in haste. It has been really heartening to see how in almost all cases users have responded positively to polite requests to edit to a more respectful wording. It works. GH has a hide mechanism as well. I would propose we use a similar process here.
Regarding the Supreme Court idea - I would favor a more engaged group if indeed the labor is available.
I'm not sure it is, though I could be wrong. We have IMO been understaffed for moderation, which is probably the biggest issue. Also when things have been particularly toxic, it doesn't make people want to give their time to that, so a better running system will improve the engagement of the volunteer mods we do have.
More generally, all of the issues and pitfalls raised regarding the existing mod structures, would also apply to any higher level of organisation. I don't see how to avoid that.
We made a point some months ago...
Thanks so much for this thoughtful post @scztt! I agree with every word!
A small addition: I think it would be wise to at least have some overlap between the discord and forum, since the discord is essentially 1/3 of the SuperCollider community ecosystem at this point. I think full sharing is unrealistic, because not all of us spend equal time on both, but some overlap would be good. I can reach out to Joonas/seraphim/whoever else is current in these roles over there to see if they want to join the conversation.
A small addition: I think it would be wise to at least have some overlap between the discord and forum
@scztt I took the liberty of adding you as a moderator here on GH, but can remove you if you prefer. If anyone else is interested, let me know.
I want to reiterate that my work was plagiarized by a contributor to this project, who also directly attacked myself and other contributors when this was revealed. Assuming that the above comments are genuinely meant, what action is the moderation team taking to rectify this recent incident? Will the deleted issue be restored (via https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/47797, this appears to be possible) so that moderators can address these code of conduct violations in a consensus-based decision? Or is the consensus decision now that the original issue deletion is the appropriate response, and no further discussion is necessary?
To specify these thing here:
if such a team exists, who these people are (are the forum moderators these moderators?), how to contact them in case of an incident,
The list of moderators. https://scsynth.org/g/moderators/ Messages to moderators can be sent from here. Additionally, flagged posts are visible to moderators (though the intention of flagging is firstly a user-to-user communication that a post should be modified, so not all flagging needs a moderation action).
Moderators were JUST now added to the github organization (thanks @muellmusik) - I don't see an easy way to see a user list, but for now it's basically the same people - and any new people added to the team via this process would be added there as well. The formal moderator role was not a github feature when the supercollider organization was create, afaik it's a relatively new github feature. Flagged / reported posts on github will make it to the moderators - I can't find a direct message-based communication path unfortunately, this requires some learning and it may be that this is an area that is just not very fleshed out on GH (history its been a huge and problematic missing feature).
AFAIK the effective moderator on discord is Joonas (ffforces) - there may be others, but I'll let Joonas answer that.
All of the above is unclear / not visible - and, in case of GH moderation, some of us simply didn't know the functionality existed as it does. Making these channels more visible and discoverable is a really important part of this RFC.
@capital-G I pinned the RFC post on the forum. IMO it would be best to have a separate "Searching for new moderators" post, where we could outline the role and expectations and do nominations etc, maybe once we're approaching some kind of consensus on some bullet-point goals in the RFC?
Regarding Moss' comment - the incident in question is being taken seriously, and has been responded to outside of this RFC. We can talk more about this, but the conversations are still ongoing.
I'd like to ask that we please keep the discussion to the RFC at hand, out of respect for its owner and the overall goals. It's important we move this forward, else we will simply continue the same problems of an overtaxed moderation staff, ambiguous protocols, etc.
Finally, please send CoC or moderation concerns to the moderators group in the link I posted above - this is the ONLY easy way for us to see messages collectively and respond to them in an organized way. We are very open to constructive feedback and really want to make sure that issues are resolved in a way that makes everyone feel resolved - this requires a level of collaboration and direct communication to do well.
I'll temporarily lock this thread, and will unlock in a day (or less) - @capital-G, I'll reach out to you about this specifically.
I think that the fierceness of the discussion about this PR actually shows the need to improve communication within this community.
In my original proposal, I suggested that, in addition to the mods, there should be an additional team whose job it is to intervene and mediate in conflicts and frictions, guided by the CoC. To me, this is "enforcing the CoC": we set goals and guidelines through the CoC, and currently the procedure for violating them is not clear, at least to me.
The aim here is not to create an atmosphere of persecution of individuals, instead I want to create a dedicated council that deals with this in a transparent and formal way, a team that is sensitive to conflict and can engage with people about their behaviour. This would be a great way to invite people to contribute to the SC community beyond coding.
The formal aspect I propose is
- Make it transparent who is on the Council,
- how to contact them, and
- when to contact them.
Once their opinion, skill or help has been requested, they can initiate a timely "investigation" in which they
- assess the conflict against the CoC,
- they can contact people to find a resolution,
- suggest action to the Mod Team or users if necessary, and
- if necessary, make a forum post explaining the actions to the community (as seen at https://scsynth.org/t/suspension-retrospective/9039/1).
The exact modus operandi can be refined by the team itself and is only a first draft from my side.
I appreciate the hard work of the moderators. However, I believe that the current situation may not be satisfactory for everyone. For example, there's no explanation for the recent problems and I'm still not sure how to contact them. Please do not take this as a criticism of the moderation team; I really appreciate their dedication and effort. I have the feeling that the mods are currently understaffed, and my intention here is to support this team through a dedicated team when dealing with more delicate conflicts.
I'd really like to take this forward and proceed with step 1 of the original proposal, which is to begin a casting process for the council. I invite everyone to voice their concerns so we can create the best community for everyone possible!
Briefly, with the aim of improving clarity and communication as things stand here and on the forum:
- Who are moderators/admins:
- https://scsynth.org/about (admins are also de facto moderators)
- https://github.com/organizations/supercollider/settings/moderators (not sure if this is visible to members by default, let me know and we can see if we can fix it)
- How to contact them:
- flag any problematic content on the appropriate platform
- Send a message to the forum mod group https://scsynth.org/g/moderators/
- When to contact them:
- On GH or the forum please flag in the first instance. This triggers the automatic moderation process and tools, and is the best way to get attention to your issue.
- I can't comment on Discourse or any other platforms, as I'm not a mod there and AFAICS they're not involved in the discussion here, but I imagine they have similar mechanisms.
- If you have a general question outside of an issue, you can send a message as noted above.
- Note that moderation will mostly happen behind the scenes and that 'retrospective' posts of the type mentioned above should probably be exceptional, i.e. when something has gone wrong. The idea with flagging and the moderation tools is to address things before they blow up into large issues. This can really work. The tools are well designed and can be very effective if we actually use them.
Hope that helps clarify things as they stand. Speaking personally, as I know there are varying views, I would just reiterate that if anyone wants to help or has concerns, I think the single best thing you could do is put yourself forward as a mod for one or more of the platforms. On a practical level, that is where mod work will ultimately be done, and where any power to 'enforce' actually sits.
Thanks for the info @muellmusik - I think a sticky post in the forum with exactly this information could improve the visibility and transparency of the current moderation efforts which is my motivation behind this PR.
I created a hedgedoc document to write such a sticky post together, feel free to add, edit, delete and improve: https://hedgedoc.musikinformatik.net/vVhyAuE4SjmDjTXZsZZn_w?both= (click on the pencil button on the top left to start editing)
This post could then be also linked in our Code of Conduct.
Would everyone be fine with such a sticky post?
Hi thanks for that, @capital-G.
A post of that nature was the plan anyway, we were just taking time as we wanted to include some info on what moderation is, how it works, what you can expect, etc., and felt it was important to do that carefully and get it right. I appreciate this seems very slow, but again it's careful and time consuming volunteer work which can only be done properly when people have the bandwidth. I'm actually taking time away from vacation with my family to write this. I can't promise but was hoping to have some time to look at some of that week after next.
In the meantime a few quick thoughts on the draft:
- It should be posted by someone on the mod team so it can be marked as 'staff'.
- Please include the points I made above about using the builtin mechanisms first, for all the reasons discussed above. Properly used these can even enable community members to resolve conflicts without moderator intervention being needed, which is the best outcome for social as well as practical reasons! :-)
- Your statement that flagging on GH would send to GH itself rather than mods was not really accurate. Community moderation was already enabled on the main SC repo and many of the other ones in the org. I've now gone through all 23 repos and opted in to moderation wherever that was needed. Again flagging is the best first step in the large majority of cases.
- For transparency it's much better to link to site lists of moderators than list people in the post. Pointless to create an unnecessary maintenance requirement as any manually entered list will sooner or later (probably sooner) be out of date.
- Similarly we should encourage the use of group contact points like
@moderators. If you send to the team (or flag) you're far more likely to get a timely response than if you write an individual.
On a more personal note @capital-G, I just want to say that while there's a variety of views on the best way to proceed, I absolutely appreciate the spirit in which this RFC has been put forward. I imagine everyone here would agree, but I think it's good to say these things! So thanks for that!
Are there any missing steps/blockers that are preventing a mod from posting https://hedgedoc.musikinformatik.net/vVhyAuE4SjmDjTXZsZZn_w?both=# as a sticky in the forum?
If you think the text needs some tweaking, feel free to edit or discuss it here, but I would really like to see some progress here.
BTW, even I can't access https://github.com/organizations/supercollider/settings/moderators - this should be made public my someone.