Craig Russell wrote on 2019-7-20 4:47PM EDT: > Hi, > > I think that one of the guidelines for moderation of a working list (as > opposed to a general list) should be: > > Does this message help serve the function of the group it is directed to? > > There is a lot of discussion around whether a post is offensive, ad hominem, > triggering, etc. and these clearly should be rejected either via social or > technical means. > > But do we have consensus that for a working group (like this one at D&I) we > should insist that messages have to be helpful to the group in fulfilling its > mission?
+1 to all above. Yes, some of the calls here may be perceived as subjective; as long as the moderators are also active participants in the work and are on the relevant committee/PMC, then we should trust them in general to make the right call. For random email senders, this makes sense: we're happy for each project (or committee) to set some of their own guidelines in a broad sense for how they work together. For ASF Members, while there is a long established de facto ability to have read access to mailing lists, that does not translate to any particular merit in terms of committing or working in any particular PMC or committee. So if a specific PMC or committee discusses and works on documented moderation guidelines, I believe they should be able to apply them to Members and non-Members alike. In terms of escalations (i.e. when a poster disagrees with the moderation itself, and to ensure the board or relevant officer are aware of possibly problematic moderation rejections) we alredy have a policy: https://www.apache.org/board/escalation > Sorry if this isn't totally relevant. No, perfect timing and well framed. -- - Shane Director & Member The Apache Software Foundation
