On Wed, 4 Mar 2026 at 17:42, Kevin Smith via Members <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 4 Mar 2026, at 17:34, Dave Cridland <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, 4 Mar 2026 at 11:20, Matthew Wild <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> 2. Significant moderation decisions may be reported to the Board or
>> Conduct Team as appropriate.
>
>
> When I wrote the CoC, I assumed that a moderation team would be the same 
> thing as a conduct team - or rather, the other way around, with the conduct 
> team being visible and proactively moderating as needed. I also assumed Board 
> would want to get a conduct team in place really quickly.
>
> Should be Moderation team just be the Conduct team? If not, why not?
>
>
> I could easily imagine someone being will to act in the relatively tight 
> confines of ‘bad stuff happening in MUCs, let’s head it off’ while not 
> wanting to be responsible for the big ticket items and appeals that the 
> conduct team would be responsible for. I can also imagine that if most stuff 
> is being handled by a moderation team that the need for a Conduct Team 
> distinct from Board is reduced. So I quite like the split, although if there 
> was an active conduct team serving both purposes, that seems fine too.

Agreed. I'm not strictly opposed to the two teams being the same team,
but I think there is value in having them separate, although they will
obviously work very closely with each other at times. I think it would
be easier to scale the moderation team, because it is less of a
commitment. And we certainly need more people helping with enforcement
than we have now.

Formally establishing a non-Board Conduct Team and assigning them sole
responsibility for moderation would be a valid alternative route. But
I worry it would hinder efforts at improving moderation if we can't
recruit enough people. Plus I actually kind of like the Board ==
Conduct Team situation, as Board is directly elected by the members
and therefore automatically rotating (slowly, but our existing work
teams rotate far more slowly).

Regards,
Matthew

Reply via email to