- Kat Marchán - @zkat (facilitator)
- Ashley Williams - @ashleygwilliams (member)
- Julie Pagano - @juliepagano (member)
- Bryan Hughes - @nebrius (member)
- Mikeal Rogers - @mikeal (Foundation)
- Jeremiah Senkpiel - @Fishrock123 (TSC)
- Beau Gunderson - @beaugunderson (member, note-taker)
- discussion around facilitation and where to take notes
- figuring out how to go on-air
- it's complicated
- kat: i'm with npm on the cli team, i'll be moderating
- kat: i'll be helping us have an organized, directed discussion about the
agenda items
- agenda = #37 on the working group repo
- #37
- kat: we'll take turns talking and i'll call on you when it's your turn
- kat: facilitation is a process of getting people to discuss issues
constructively
- not quite moderation
- ashley: should we do introductions?
- kat: yes
- ashley: work at npm
- beau: work at personalgenomes.org
- bryan: work at rdio
- jeremiah: node tsc
- julie: software developer at seed
- mikeal: work at the nodejs foundation
- https://github.com/nodejs/inclusivity/blob/conduct/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md#scope
- ashley: fear of WG extending its powers beyond the WG
- ashley: COC updated with snell's wording
- kat: can someone echo that back?
- bryan: i agree that we can moderate our WG as we see fit
- bryan: my understanding is that if we want to moderate/ban outside the WG we need to escalate outside the WG
- kat: is that accurate?
- ashley: yes
- jeremiah: technical restrictions on banning (org-wide vs. repo)
- ashley: should we take technical discussion async?
- group votes yes
- jeremiah: overlap between #38 and #43 and #44?
- ashley: recaps overlap
- kat: sounds like we're on the same page re: the intended scope
- kat: doesn't sound like anyone thinks we expect powers that go outside the WG
at this point
- group affirms this
- #41
- kat: sounds like this is mostly resolved
- kat: we had some issues pop up last week
- kat: things like managing brigades/people disrupting discussions
- kat: preventing multiple direct responses to individuals (dogpiling)
- having 5 people respond to 1 person can be kind of rough
- kat: discussion on issues on github vs. working group meetings (separate from private/public divide, #40)
- kat: notes meeting time is half over
- julie: concern re: assigning agenda items to async groups due to us holding off on issue dicussion until WG meetings
- jeremiah: we should look at TSC moderation plans
- mikeal: james wrote up that policy, he suggested i should go in and add a section for dealing with troll accounts (brand-new accounts)
- mikeal: sometimes trolls show up and don't violate the COC but do attempt to derail the conversation
- mikeal: this section will need to educate people on how trolls operate as well as lay out the moderation policy
- kat: can someone echo that back?
- bryan: echoes back, and asks maybe add trolling as a COC violation?
- julie: gives an example of this
- ashley: we do include that in the COC that's currently proposed
- ashley: COC lineage: WG COC came from npm which came from rust
- jeremiah: we need a better way to identify what's trolling
- kat: elaborate?
- jeremiah: people have different ideas of what trolling is; defining different types of trolling would give us a better platform to do something about it
- mikeal: people think of trolling as a subjective term, concern re: branding a particular type of speech as "trolling"; using different criteria for accounts helps avoid this
- mikeal: also helps educate on what derailing is
- ashley: hard because inclusivity WG serves to help people without much OSS history and may have newer accounts
- ashley: can we lift our holding pattern on issue discussion?
- kat: how do people feel about that?
- julie: we talked about dealing with obvious trolls (one of the reasons for the holding pattern)
- julie: the more difficult part: actual members/OSS people engaging in good faith having tense discussions
- kat: what can we put in place right now to help have documented discussions around these issues to avoid the problems that lead to the holding pattern?
- bryan: how do we prevent dogpiling
- bryan: strategies to reduce temperature
- bryan: let's come up with solutions for those two bullet points and then lift the holding pattern
- ashley: list of values help us decide which issues to prioritize (and which we can close because they're no longer up for debate)
- ashley: for example if someone creates an issue that the WG shouldn't care about problematic language, we can close that
- kat: echo that back?
- julie: sounds like setting us up so that we're not a space to host derailing conversations
- kat: how do we feel about adding the scope to issues? "please keep the discussion to X topic"
- kat: how do people feel about that?
- group affirms
- ashley: boilerplate for making these type of issues? and moderation template like "please review the issue's requirements for participating"
- bryan: i support that and it will help because we can take time to craft that in advance; this supports keeping the temperature low because it takes emotion out of the response
- jeremiah: how do we get the questions in these issues?
- kat: let's leave that for the next two agenda items
- group affirms
- kat: anything else?
- ashley: do we agree that we should make that and the question is just how?
- kat: does anyone want to own this?
- ashley: i can
- bryan: i'll help too
- bryan: also, is this a requirement of every issue posted? every issue by WG members?
- julie: would like to have guidelines, but if someone from outside doesn't do this i would want us to help clean it up/get it in the approved format
- ashley: jona was interested in having a CONTRIBUTING file
- kat: sounds like ashley/bryan & maybe jona will work together on documenting what this issue process will be
- kat: process for putting up issues (will apply to WG members and external contributors)
- kat: boilerplate that describes what the scope of discussion is and explains that off-topic comments will be aggressively moderated
- ashley: boilerplate should be public but developed in private
- ashley: moderation comment should be private
- jeremiah: boilerplate should be public
- ashley: agreed
- #42
- kat: how's the structure so far?
- group gives thumbs up
- kat: i just kind of threw this agenda together
- ashley: a way to help distribute pressure; maybe on monday people can suggest agenda items
- jeremiah: TSC agendas are just kind of thrown together too
- jeremiah: issues get tagged as an agenda item (people can't make a decision on something, or only CTC/TSC can make a decision on something)
- jeremiah: from monday to wednesday a couple of things get thrown in there, often the most important things from week to week
- kat: i hear you saying how most groups work is that people can create issues, there can be discussion, and people can mark them as agenda items
- kat: when we decide the agenda we can pull in those issues (but are not required to)
- kat: we have 10 minutes left, i think we can postpone most of these but i want to talk about private/public balance
- jeremiah: let's punt the last two items
- ashley: i want to merge the COC
- kat: sounded like we were going to merge it last friday, and further changes were going to be added later as needed
- kat: everyone cool with talking about this?
- group affirms
- mikeal: let's just merge it
- ashley: how to solicit feedback from the wider community? (since everyone here is positive about merging it)
- jeremiah: re: timing, core has a policy for this so people from different timezones; 48 hours on weekdays & 72 hours on weekends
- mikeal: clarifies this timing is from PR opening
- ashley: making the slack logs public? what's the process?
- bryan: let's open an issue on that
- kat: that's a good agenda item
- mikeal: let's move away from public and private in the absolute sense
- kat: two minutes left, final thoughts?
- julie: for meetings can we join five minutes early?
- kat: fine by me, also let's dicuss timezones
- ashley: maybe we can rotate times
- kat: if you're responsible for one of the agenda items we talked about please close it
- kat: let's make issues for the things we talked about
(meeting adjourns)
Copyright Node.js Inclusivity Contributors SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT