#node-dev IRC is not currently under TSC supervision

[jasnell]

The #node-dev IRC channel is generally considered to be an official resource and communication channel of the Node.js Core. However, it's administration and moderation is not currently managed under the supervision of the @nodejs/tsc. This either needs to be fixed or a new IRC channel that is managed by the TSC needs to be established.

In respect to this issue, management includes:

1. Nomination / Selection / Maintenance of IRC Channel Operators - #node-dev IRC Channel Operators should consist only of active Node.js Collaborators selected by the @nodejs/tsc. Individual Operators that are not currently Collaborators approved by the TSC should have the Operator permission removed.
2. Enforcement of Code of Conduct / Moderation rules - Moderation of the #node-dev IRC Channel should be subject to the Node.js Code of Conduct and the Node.js Moderation Policy. All Moderation actions taken on IRC channel should be auditable by the TSC.
3. Management of IRC Channel Properties - This includes channel subject, configuration options, permitted use of bots, etc.
4. Maintenance of IRC Chat Logs. The #node-dev IRC Channel logs should become part of the Node.js project's public record with logs maintained by the Node.js project.

Note that this does not include the #Node.js IRC channel, which is not considered to be a resource for Node.js core development.

[Fishrock123]

Technically it is under the supervision of the TSC given that the channel owner is me, a TSC member.

1. Why?
2. I've already stated previously that the github moderation policy is completely impractical for irc. :/
3. possibly unimportant -- remember when we couldn't decide on a description for the github repo and I gave it the one it has now? lol
4. the foundation should totally be paying for this sort of thing but apparently subscriptions to hosting services are "hard" for foundations. (what a mess)

[jasnell]

Technically, it is not under the supervision of the TSC. Simply because an individual TSC member happens to be one of the operators, that does not mean the channel is operated under the supervision of the TSC as a whole. For example, the selection of channel operators is apparently not subject to TSC review; nor is the administration of whatever moderation policy is being enforced. If the #node-dev IRC channel is expected to be an officially provided resource of the Node.js project, it needs to be properly under the supervision of the whole TSC, not just a single member of the TSC + any number of other Operators who are not answerable to the TSC in any way.

As for your bullet points:

1. Accountability, Transparency and Oversight. All the same reasons all TSC and CTC members are Co-owners of the Node.js GitHub organization.
2. We have a process and a first step towards updating that moderation policy so that it adequately covers IRC. The moderation policy is not set in stone and can be modified following our standard processes.
3. It is as important as moderation of our GitHub-provided communication channels.
4. Agreed. However, it is the TSC's responsibility to ask for the foundation to procure such resources and, as far I as know, no such request has ever been made.

It is entirely possible / likely that the TSC would select the exact same set of operators that currently configured for the #node-dev IRC channel with exactly the same moderation process as currently used. The point is that if the IRC channel is going to be an officially supported resource, then it's administration needs to be accountable to the TSC.

[Fishrock123]

1. That's not really the same as an irc operator role. Many of the us do not have the time to be actively doing this in a live chat channel, thus requiring extra moderators.
   • fwiw, there can only ever be one channel founder (+F), although you can mark people with "successor" (+S) rights, which has the same coverage as +F except that it cannot remove +F (or maybe also +S?).
2. let's just boot this convo to the other issue
3. point 3 was about the channel subject and related points (???)
4. we definitely have made requests before (albeit not for this), cc @rvagg and @mikeal

It is entirely possible / likely that the TSC would select the exact same set of operators that currently configured for the #node-dev IRC channel

I probably wouldn't. I chose these people because they either were active and/or they were mods in #Node.js. There isn't really any detailed rhyme or reason.

[jasnell]

Ah, it was not apparent that your bullet points were responses to the ones
in the original post. The most likely outcome would be that the TSC would
nominate some set of operators from the set of collaborators who have both
the time and inclination for such matters and defer to their judgement. The
key point here is that selection of those operators and oversight of their
actions should be the responsibility of the TSC so that the chain of
responsibility is clear. It's a formality, yes, but an important one.

On Sunday, July 31, 2016, Jeremiah Senkpiel notifications@github.com
wrote:

1. That's not really the same as an irc operator role. Many of the us
   do not have the time to be actively doing this in a live chat channel, thus
   requiring extra moderators.
   • fwiw, there can only ever be one channel founder (+F), although
     you can mark people with "successor" (+S) rights, which has the same
     coverage as +F except that it cannot remove +F (or maybe also +S?).
2. let's just boot this convo to the other issue
3. point 3 was about the channel subject and related points (???)
4. we definitely have made requests before (albeit not for this), cc
   @rvagg https://github.com/rvagg and @mikeal
   https://github.com/mikeal

It is entirely possible / likely that the TSC would select the exact same
set of operators that currently configured for the #node-dev IRC channel

I probably wouldn't. I chose these people because they either were active
and/or they were mods in #Node.js. There isn't really any detailed rhyme or
reason.

—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#121 (comment), or mute
the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAa2ecSMRxZkJDAuwJNc22r1Aa4z0bdnks5qbUMlgaJpZM4JZJUN
.

[mikeal]

Please keep in mind that IRC moderation is a pretty huge task and any disruption to the current system of moderation would be difficult to mend.

The experts on IRC moderation are the people currently moderating, not anyone in the TSC (expect @Fishrock123). It would be unwise for the TSC to jump in and tell the current moderators how they should operate.

[jasnell]

This also needs to consider whether the #Node.js channel should also be considered an official resource. Currently it is not.

[Fishrock123]

If someone is going to write a policy, they should probably focus on #node-dev for now imo.

[jasnell]

Agreed. I mentioned the #Node.js channel only because Isaacs brought it up in a separate thread.

[Fishrock123]

Untagging until progress is made

[jasnell]

+1 .. thank you, I'd meant to do so but forgot. Appreciate it.

[ChALkeR]

What's the status of this one? There is some discussion going on about the #Node.js channel in nodejs/node#7746 (comment)

[jasnell]

I put this on hold pending the discussions about moving the inclusivity
work to the foundation as was discussed on last week's tsc call. Ideally,
in my opinion, the mods/admins for any official irc channels should be
reviewable/accountable either to the tsc or the foundation based on an
official moderation policy. Hopefully that will be included in the proposal
we're now waiting for from the foundation.

On Saturday, September 3, 2016, Сковорода Никита Андреевич <
notifications@github.com> wrote:

What's the status of this one? There is some discussion going on about the
#Node.js channel in nodejs/node#7746 (comment)
nodejs/node#7746 (comment)

—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#121 (comment), or mute
the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAa2ecRBE70sTmR-eW6psgXbItTFjb16ks5qma1RgaJpZM4JZJUN
.

[emersonveenstra]

Hi, freenode staff member here, following up from the quote linked above.

If the TSC decides to register as an official group on freenode (and we hope that you will!), one of the members, preferably @rvagg, will need to send an email to projects@freenode.net letting us know that you want to register. Once registered, you will have control over #node.js, #node-dev, and all other #node.js-* and #node-* channels.

Feel free to PM me (emerson) or any other staff member on freenode with questions or concerns.

[MylesBorins]

@emersonveenstra would we be able to get node.js foundation cloaks if we did so?

[emersonveenstra]

Yep! Either @nodejs/* or @node/*, whichever you prefer.

[Fishrock123]

Do we need a strict policy for this right now? It seems like an unreasonable amount of work. We should just keep it loose until there is actually dedicated time & energy to make one.

@emersonveenstra I would probably be the primary contact here, I'm +F #node-dev.

[emersonveenstra]

@Fishrock123 that's cool, the TSC can choose whoever it wishes to be the primary contact as long as you note it in meeting minutes or however you decide for posterity's sake. I only mentioned rvagg since he is the director.

[jasnell]

while this is still an unresolved issue, further discussion should be directed to the Community Committee