I don’t know how to be most useful to the community as we navigate the difficulties we’re facing as a community, but as a member of the [[CWG]] I would love to do what I can to help us communicate and cooperate as kindly as we can.
I’ve been working for social.coop after work these last few days — interesting stuff happening over there :) I’m a member of [[twg]] and [[cwg]]. oncall for the latter this week.
[[sam]] from the [[cwg]] put this together for trying to handle the spam wave, he says it’s not currently working but I think it’s a good start for a tool that could handle future waves: https://codeberg.org/SamWhited/spamblock
#SocialCoop great job on the instance announcements! 7/7 were interesting :) thank you to the [[CWG]] team which keeps these running and does so much other work for the community!
I’m oncall for the #cwg this week by the way, so if you register soon I’ll get to read your responses to the [[registration form]] as I process them :)
I’m oncall for the #cwg this week by the way, so if you register soon I’ll get to read your responses to the [[registration form]] as I process them :)
Loading pushes...
β¨ AI Synthesis
MistralGeminiChatGPTClaudex
Expanding this section will automatically generate an AI synthesis of the contributions in this node.
c: then whoever sees it (backstopped by whoever is on call) puts it in zulip so we can discuss and ideally replies to the person acknowledging the appeal and reminding "async if possible, might need to wait for meeting"
m: hesitate to promise reply.
c: how is person notified of outcome?
m: could publish appeal outcomes in moderation log
c: could be cool to be transparent about appeals.
c: appeals to appeals? OC reviewing CWG decision.
m: start a zulip thread about this, if nobody has questions let’s make a wiki page in a week or 2.
action melissa write up this process on Zulip
s: Should we document how the decision should be made?
m: Figure it out case-by-case?
s: "consensus by CWG"
notifying members when they’re impacted by a suspension (prob could use TWG help)
m: Auto-DM people on social.coop based on moderation actions
c: webhook on suspensions?
h: would be a cool mastodon feature
s: do other social media sites do a notification like that?
c: maybe a research task to find out if this happens for individual account suspensions
m: research quest! does it happen, if so, when?
h: is it reasonable for members to expect this notification?
d: are there anti-patterns that we might discover in this process of notifying, builds more drama?
h: came up in this issue, "people don’t have access to this user, they don’t know about it". What is the reason for telling a person? Could be frustrating/confusing, "where did John Doe go"
d: I’d be ok making a list of accounts that were suspended somewhere where members could look at it
s: leaning towards "yes", important for data ownership, governance.
doing an audit of server privileges/access. (prob could use TWG help)
c: dan has started this?
m: yes! done a bunch of it
d: Did a first pass on mastodon. TWG has a bunch of people with server access. Loomio is "owned" by Matt.
general: David Mynors, flancian, red_oak, wu_lee, MattCropp
d: Didn’t want to specifically pick and choose, ended up with a table to make it more clear. Sorta-arbitrary: "one member from each WG is admin, all CWG people are moderators, everyone else gets bumped down". Mostly things would stay the same. Hollie doing announcements, as personal account?
h: Yes
d: Been doing announcements as admin user, seems like an antipattern.
possibly a moderation report/log (prob could use TWG help - maybe there’s something we can automate)
m: monthly loomio post, locked down to social.coop members. Auto-generate from something. Do it as part of monthly meeting.
m: maybe if we’re doing this we don’t need to do #2?
s: public? or public to members?
m: just to members, on loomio
h: seems really helpful
s: if we start getting better about adding notes to reports, log could be completely auto-generated.
m: virtuous cycle of more context β notes β context
h: could help reduce drama
m: proposal: punt on #2 until after this, then see if we still need it.
c: there was a mastodon notification about losing follows when we defederated from threads; is there one for individual accounts? maybe it only happens at the end of the grace period when follows are actually severed?
m: maybe feature request to mastodon to notify earlier? or add notification if not existent.
d: Selfhosted hedgedoc reasonably easy, SSO.
M: Rather have something open to whole coop than chaotic nextcloud "if you’re interested in working groups then maybe perhaps you get an account"
action calix ask TWG about this, audit log, and notifying users of suspensions affecting their follows
action melissa write up zulip post about possible appeals, june moderation schedule
m: at the time we were thinking about making a flowchart, "they’re definitely spam" / "they’re definitely abusing people". Make it easier for new moderators, and give people a reference for what moderators are doing.
flowchart LR
Report[Report made] --> Abuse[Is it abuse?]
Abuse-->|Y|Suspend
Abuse-->|N|Spam[Is it spam?]
Spam-->|Y|Suspend
Spam-->|N|CoC[CoC stuff...]
Attendees: Hollie, Calix, Dan, Melissa, Steve
Facilitate: Hollie
Notes: Dan
FYI: mailgun, which we use for mastodon sourced emails like user confirmations, is currently busted.
- Hollie noticed notifications aren’t coming from Mastodon.
Agenda items:
suspend or limit that Zeitgeist guy?
Moderating out of turn was motivated by protect the users.
Surprising pushback from at least one member.
Establish expected response time.
Is the question about user’s behavior or the LLM client software? (Initial safety motivation was the latter.)
Decision-tree style guidance would be helpful. At the very least we should be able to answer: why were they suspended? Whether it’s our user or external makes a difference.
Understandable that the response time was frustrating.
Federation abuse policy say bans are warranted for not respecting opt-outs. A stricter standard should go to the membership.
We’ve let things slide in the past that were more spicy than the level of convo in the thread.
Bad timing, given the CWG calendar schedule. Can’t set unreasonable expectations about quick decisions.
Interesting to compare to Big Tech, where appeals to moderation go for a long time, or go unheard.
Are ops team meetings happening regularly, are we reviewing cases like this. (Yes.)
We should keep perspective that this is a single user suspension.
What does it mean for someone to get suspended, is their membership revoked?
On CoC: violated the spirit of "be nice," blocking people in the thread. Cited in the exchanges on Zulip.
It should be okay that decision making is slow. Chill.
At least one member left the coop because of the Loomio discussion.
Making space for reconciliation.
We should make space to vent, this is stressful.
The aggresive approach to disputing the mod action seemed like a violation of the CoC.
Less about AI and more about there was a violation of CoC.
We should have an appeals process.
Suggestion: go around and decide limit/suspend?
Calix: could go either way, leaning limit
Hollie: suspend
Dan: leaning limit (and it’s more important that we’re okay with how we change our minds)
Melissa: limit
Steve: limit
Validates harrassment to change our mind. Don’t want to encourage bad behavior. But don’t feel great about factoring that into the decision.
Set up a discussion with Flancian to talk about his conduct hounding the CWG.
We should apply our CoC on non-members, it effects what people see on our instance.
Decision: limit.
Timeline:
Dan makes a draft by Monday
Group feedback until Tuesday
Make the mod action change and post to Loomio at the same time
try to reach an LLM policy?
Let’s get to this later.
remove moderator ability for Flan/folks who have left CWG?
Owner status is a limitation in the software for removing permissions.
moderation questions is unlocked, and could conceivably be for philosophical questions and abstract scenarios
reports is locked and is about specific actions of specific people (everyone who’s a moderator can see it)
M: Confusing in the past, but might be good to have them. So folks can say "what if…" in a separate, wider space. Important to keep reports locked. Especially if we’re letting people join Zulip more openly cos they’re interested.
H: Agree, nice to separate theory from specific questions about individual reports.
S: Learning the ropes - is #reports automated?
M: When someone wants to discuss a specific report.
S: Moderation questions is more "moderation: everything to do with it"?
M: Yes
S: Agree with Melissa then. Might have sensitive discussion about reports.
M: In conclusion: Do Nothingβ’
S: Was there a specific reason to merge them?
M: Don’t think there was a strong argument.
H: Expect there would be an expectation from co-op members that reports are limited to mod team. Would be weird to invite "working-group-curious" people to see it.
M: Silver, Steve, Gilles, and Malaya (did I miss anyone?)
H: I can try to do it?
M: Or buddy up?
ACTION Hollie & Melissa Set us up Loomio votes for Silver, Steve, Gilles, Malaya
Helping with easy reports, as one can, is that a norm for us?Β§
M: Especially as we’re bringing on more mods, worth clarifying.
H: When I joined ~18 months ago, moderation was a lot more casual. People named for the week, maybe they were busy, not a lot of people on the team. So really normal that someone else had taken care of report. "Does that mean I did a bad job" — feedback was, somebody was logged in, just did it. "I’m on the team and would help alleviate the load." For new folks: become more confident as folks are handling reports. Are we taking something away from new mods?
C: Definitely did feel weird for 3 reasons:
Felt like a bit of a scam during some on-call shifts where I got beaten to every single decision! But separate role: "on-call" is backstop establishing maximum response time.
Some actions taken by people who aren’t taking on-call shifts,
Decisions taken which I disagreed with
C: But ultimately seems fine, separate roles, just think we should document & inform people.
H: My experience, everyone has always been open to discussing decisions. Never had a situation where someone is trying to beat you into an opinion. Always benefits me to hear a different opinion.
S: Agreed with everything just said. And H’s suggestion, might be helpful for newer people to take on moderating tasks, especially the easy ones. Better for me on my first time? Only comes up when somebody doing it for the first time. After hearing discussion, agree it should just be somewhere explicitly said, know it can happen, can expect it. Same thoughts as C & H. When you do grab a report, is there a way to say "I’m working on this"?
H: Yes, can assign report in Mastodon. When I notice that’s been done, even if it’s my week, I don’t touch it. 2 things:
Severe ADHD, time is a fluid concept. Doing things when I see it is my way of being helpful. I will try to dive in less.
Let’s put it in the notes that it can happen
C: Personally I definitely find it helpful when other people take actions! Please continue. Only suggestion is: maybe let’s send a flare to CWG to not take actions during a new moderator’s first/second shifts, so they get some practice. Also, to respond about disagreed-with actions: I really don’t think it’s our role to police correct use of hashtags. Steady stream of reports about people "misusing" #SilentSunday, there are no rules.
M: That was part of the rationale for writing up how moderation works, clarify we don’t think we have a mandate
H: I definitely take action against things which are spam.
C: "Here’s a picture I took, here’s where you could buy a print of it" = not spam? Unless we assume that #SilentSunday is a beautiful anticommercial decommodified spaceβ¦ which it isn’t
H: Do we want to make a note? Or address it with the next post?
D: I have marked spam from those in the past, but I would be fine ignoring them
D: "is it spam" seems distinct from "is the hashtag used properly" but I do think two could interact
M: Sunday March 22nd. Will make another wiki page. Less of a clear idea of goals. Loomio announcement. Bunch of nice people come hang out last time. We’ve had more ideas than people so far.
ACTION Hollie & Melissa Make A Loomio Post about the hackathon
Feb 2 - dan
Feb 9 - Matt & Gilles
Feb 16 - calix & Steve
Feb 23 - sam
M: Same order? Let Matt off the hook cos he’s not here? Steve wanna do an independent one?
S: Didn’t do any shadowing this week. But if y’all think I can handle it I’ll take a week!
M: Good to shadow someone?
H: I’m free, could be backup.
D: first two weeks of March are bad for me
S: I’ll shadow someone, play it safe, no reason to rush
C: Didn’t handle any reports this week π But I should have reached out about new registrations which I did handle, whoops.
H: Good to leave Matt, he seems pretty busy.
M: Sam can take one, has been happy to
ACTION Melissa DM Sam to check availability
March 2: Hollie & Steve
March 9: Calix
March 16: Sam
March 23: Dan
March 30: (Hollie and whomever wants to help?)
ACTION Calix add these to The Calendar once Sam confirms
S: How to coordinate with Hollie about shadowing?
H: DM on Mastodon, or email. Zulip could work, usually forget to check it.
M: Seems like this time works OK? March 20th, same π¦ time, same π¦ channel.
H: Works for me too.
C: π
D: π
H: Would 27th be better?
M: We’ve been trying to do 3rd Friday of the month.
D: Bonfire. Any opinions? Treating it as "demo"? Or taking it on as moderated space? Is there some boilerplate warning we should be including?
H: Don’t know what it is?
D: I don’t feel like I really understand moderation over there tbh
C: Fediverse software. A lot of overlap with Mastodon rn - but more features, and possibility for other apps beyond microblogging - and way better governance. Maybe Google+-style But feels very wacky to be running two overlapping instances — especially given how many requests we’ve had for less-overlapping software (funkwhale, peertube, etc.) we haven’t done. And I don’t think it’s linked up with SSO, so on that basis alone would be against keeping it as anything more than a "this will all be deleted" tech demo, otherwise it’s avoidably increasing work for eventual migration of mastodon to SSO. Only argument in favour of hosting it is that public bonfire instances don’t federate so we need our own instance to get a real sense. And medium-long-term do like the idea of switching from mastodon to bonfire — would be a huge tech challenge.
D: Getting moderation going on the experiment is maybe a short-term need. Is there someone who could show us the ropes on moderation?
M: Flancian maybe?
D: Open to possibility that "we don’t need this experiment". Or we could decide our lack of moderation experience on TWG is a justification for not doing this experiment now, could always do it later.
H: Like experiment, fun to explore new thing. But agree with fun to try less-overlapping things. Tech team’s opinions on other services.
S: Why are we?
M: Flancian thought it would be fun.
S: Hearing that it’s similar to Mastodon, shouldn’t be taking Social.coop resources to run it without a clear investigation, goal. Let folks do experiments if it’s fun but not put coΓΆp resources to it. Also love playing with new things, checking out new tech. And build new federated things that aren’t microblogging? Interested in that if there’s something useful we can do with it.
H: Agree we’ve had problems with Mastodon governance.
M: Can we send Dan & Calix to TWG to bring these concerns?
D: Or OC? What is the process?
M: OC meeting (26th Feb) before next TWG meeting (4th March).
ACTION Melissa Post in OC channel on Zulip asking for concerns / excitement about Bonfire
Dan had a conflict, but is fine being on the moderator rotation wherever we need him
Django can’t do working hours meetings or moderation, settling in to new job (just to be aware)
KeyCloak instance is our future happiness for SSO - it is what we use for the wiki
is deployed using co-op cloud
next meeting:
Calix, can we meet an hour earlier or later
let’s try an hour later next month - AGREED 2/20 18:00 UTC
calendaring:
google calendar not updating from next cloud as expected (should update every 12 hours), annoying for getting this meetings
c: then whoever sees it (backstopped by whoever is on call) puts it in zulip so we can discuss and ideally replies to the person acknowledging the appeal and reminding "async if possible, might need to wait for meeting"
m: hesitate to promise reply.
c: how is person notified of outcome?
m: could publish appeal outcomes in moderation log
c: could be cool to be transparent about appeals.
c: appeals to appeals? OC reviewing CWG decision.
m: start a zulip thread about this, if nobody has questions let’s make a wiki page in a week or 2.
action melissa write up this process on Zulip
s: Should we document how the decision should be made?
m: Figure it out case-by-case?
s: "consensus by CWG"
notifying members when they’re impacted by a suspension (prob could use TWG help)
m: Auto-DM people on social.coop based on moderation actions
c: webhook on suspensions?
h: would be a cool mastodon feature
s: do other social media sites do a notification like that?
c: maybe a research task to find out if this happens for individual account suspensions
m: research quest! does it happen, if so, when?
h: is it reasonable for members to expect this notification?
d: are there anti-patterns that we might discover in this process of notifying, builds more drama?
h: came up in this issue, "people don’t have access to this user, they don’t know about it". What is the reason for telling a person? Could be frustrating/confusing, "where did John Doe go"
d: I’d be ok making a list of accounts that were suspended somewhere where members could look at it
s: leaning towards "yes", important for data ownership, governance.
doing an audit of server privileges/access. (prob could use TWG help)
c: dan has started this?
m: yes! done a bunch of it
d: Did a first pass on mastodon. TWG has a bunch of people with server access. Loomio is "owned" by Matt.
general: David Mynors, flancian, red_oak, wu_lee, MattCropp
d: Didn’t want to specifically pick and choose, ended up with a table to make it more clear. Sorta-arbitrary: "one member from each WG is admin, all CWG people are moderators, everyone else gets bumped down". Mostly things would stay the same. Hollie doing announcements, as personal account?
h: Yes
d: Been doing announcements as admin user, seems like an antipattern.
possibly a moderation report/log (prob could use TWG help - maybe there’s something we can automate)
m: monthly loomio post, locked down to social.coop members. Auto-generate from something. Do it as part of monthly meeting.
m: maybe if we’re doing this we don’t need to do #2?
s: public? or public to members?
m: just to members, on loomio
h: seems really helpful
s: if we start getting better about adding notes to reports, log could be completely auto-generated.
m: virtuous cycle of more context β notes β context
h: could help reduce drama
m: proposal: punt on #2 until after this, then see if we still need it.
c: there was a mastodon notification about losing follows when we defederated from threads; is there one for individual accounts? maybe it only happens at the end of the grace period when follows are actually severed?
m: maybe feature request to mastodon to notify earlier? or add notification if not existent.
d: Selfhosted hedgedoc reasonably easy, SSO.
M: Rather have something open to whole coop than chaotic nextcloud "if you’re interested in working groups then maybe perhaps you get an account"
action calix ask TWG about this, audit log, and notifying users of suspensions affecting their follows
action melissa write up zulip post about possible appeals, june moderation schedule
m: at the time we were thinking about making a flowchart, "they’re definitely spam" / "they’re definitely abusing people". Make it easier for new moderators, and give people a reference for what moderators are doing.
flowchart LR
Report[Report made] --> Abuse[Is it abuse?]
Abuse-->|Y|Suspend
Abuse-->|N|Spam[Is it spam?]
Spam-->|Y|Suspend
Spam-->|N|CoC[CoC stuff...]
Attendees: Hollie, Calix, Dan, Melissa, Steve
Facilitate: Hollie
Notes: Dan
FYI: mailgun, which we use for mastodon sourced emails like user confirmations, is currently busted.
- Hollie noticed notifications aren’t coming from Mastodon.
Agenda items:
suspend or limit that Zeitgeist guy?
Moderating out of turn was motivated by protect the users.
Surprising pushback from at least one member.
Establish expected response time.
Is the question about user’s behavior or the LLM client software? (Initial safety motivation was the latter.)
Decision-tree style guidance would be helpful. At the very least we should be able to answer: why were they suspended? Whether it’s our user or external makes a difference.
Understandable that the response time was frustrating.
Federation abuse policy say bans are warranted for not respecting opt-outs. A stricter standard should go to the membership.
We’ve let things slide in the past that were more spicy than the level of convo in the thread.
Bad timing, given the CWG calendar schedule. Can’t set unreasonable expectations about quick decisions.
Interesting to compare to Big Tech, where appeals to moderation go for a long time, or go unheard.
Are ops team meetings happening regularly, are we reviewing cases like this. (Yes.)
We should keep perspective that this is a single user suspension.
What does it mean for someone to get suspended, is their membership revoked?
On CoC: violated the spirit of "be nice," blocking people in the thread. Cited in the exchanges on Zulip.
It should be okay that decision making is slow. Chill.
At least one member left the coop because of the Loomio discussion.
Making space for reconciliation.
We should make space to vent, this is stressful.
The aggresive approach to disputing the mod action seemed like a violation of the CoC.
Less about AI and more about there was a violation of CoC.
We should have an appeals process.
Suggestion: go around and decide limit/suspend?
Calix: could go either way, leaning limit
Hollie: suspend
Dan: leaning limit (and it’s more important that we’re okay with how we change our minds)
Melissa: limit
Steve: limit
Validates harrassment to change our mind. Don’t want to encourage bad behavior. But don’t feel great about factoring that into the decision.
Set up a discussion with Flancian to talk about his conduct hounding the CWG.
We should apply our CoC on non-members, it effects what people see on our instance.
Decision: limit.
Timeline:
Dan makes a draft by Monday
Group feedback until Tuesday
Make the mod action change and post to Loomio at the same time
try to reach an LLM policy?
Let’s get to this later.
remove moderator ability for Flan/folks who have left CWG?
Owner status is a limitation in the software for removing permissions.
moderation questions is unlocked, and could conceivably be for philosophical questions and abstract scenarios
reports is locked and is about specific actions of specific people (everyone who’s a moderator can see it)
M: Confusing in the past, but might be good to have them. So folks can say "what if…" in a separate, wider space. Important to keep reports locked. Especially if we’re letting people join Zulip more openly cos they’re interested.
H: Agree, nice to separate theory from specific questions about individual reports.
S: Learning the ropes - is #reports automated?
M: When someone wants to discuss a specific report.
S: Moderation questions is more "moderation: everything to do with it"?
M: Yes
S: Agree with Melissa then. Might have sensitive discussion about reports.
M: In conclusion: Do Nothingβ’
S: Was there a specific reason to merge them?
M: Don’t think there was a strong argument.
H: Expect there would be an expectation from co-op members that reports are limited to mod team. Would be weird to invite "working-group-curious" people to see it.
M: Silver, Steve, Gilles, and Malaya (did I miss anyone?)
H: I can try to do it?
M: Or buddy up?
ACTION Hollie & Melissa Set us up Loomio votes for Silver, Steve, Gilles, Malaya
Helping with easy reports, as one can, is that a norm for us?Β§
M: Especially as we’re bringing on more mods, worth clarifying.
H: When I joined ~18 months ago, moderation was a lot more casual. People named for the week, maybe they were busy, not a lot of people on the team. So really normal that someone else had taken care of report. "Does that mean I did a bad job" — feedback was, somebody was logged in, just did it. "I’m on the team and would help alleviate the load." For new folks: become more confident as folks are handling reports. Are we taking something away from new mods?
C: Definitely did feel weird for 3 reasons:
Felt like a bit of a scam during some on-call shifts where I got beaten to every single decision! But separate role: "on-call" is backstop establishing maximum response time.
Some actions taken by people who aren’t taking on-call shifts,
Decisions taken which I disagreed with
C: But ultimately seems fine, separate roles, just think we should document & inform people.
H: My experience, everyone has always been open to discussing decisions. Never had a situation where someone is trying to beat you into an opinion. Always benefits me to hear a different opinion.
S: Agreed with everything just said. And H’s suggestion, might be helpful for newer people to take on moderating tasks, especially the easy ones. Better for me on my first time? Only comes up when somebody doing it for the first time. After hearing discussion, agree it should just be somewhere explicitly said, know it can happen, can expect it. Same thoughts as C & H. When you do grab a report, is there a way to say "I’m working on this"?
H: Yes, can assign report in Mastodon. When I notice that’s been done, even if it’s my week, I don’t touch it. 2 things:
Severe ADHD, time is a fluid concept. Doing things when I see it is my way of being helpful. I will try to dive in less.
Let’s put it in the notes that it can happen
C: Personally I definitely find it helpful when other people take actions! Please continue. Only suggestion is: maybe let’s send a flare to CWG to not take actions during a new moderator’s first/second shifts, so they get some practice. Also, to respond about disagreed-with actions: I really don’t think it’s our role to police correct use of hashtags. Steady stream of reports about people "misusing" #SilentSunday, there are no rules.
M: That was part of the rationale for writing up how moderation works, clarify we don’t think we have a mandate
H: I definitely take action against things which are spam.
C: "Here’s a picture I took, here’s where you could buy a print of it" = not spam? Unless we assume that #SilentSunday is a beautiful anticommercial decommodified spaceβ¦ which it isn’t
H: Do we want to make a note? Or address it with the next post?
D: I have marked spam from those in the past, but I would be fine ignoring them
D: "is it spam" seems distinct from "is the hashtag used properly" but I do think two could interact
M: Sunday March 22nd. Will make another wiki page. Less of a clear idea of goals. Loomio announcement. Bunch of nice people come hang out last time. We’ve had more ideas than people so far.
ACTION Hollie & Melissa Make A Loomio Post about the hackathon
Feb 2 - dan
Feb 9 - Matt & Gilles
Feb 16 - calix & Steve
Feb 23 - sam
M: Same order? Let Matt off the hook cos he’s not here? Steve wanna do an independent one?
S: Didn’t do any shadowing this week. But if y’all think I can handle it I’ll take a week!
M: Good to shadow someone?
H: I’m free, could be backup.
D: first two weeks of March are bad for me
S: I’ll shadow someone, play it safe, no reason to rush
C: Didn’t handle any reports this week π But I should have reached out about new registrations which I did handle, whoops.
H: Good to leave Matt, he seems pretty busy.
M: Sam can take one, has been happy to
ACTION Melissa DM Sam to check availability
March 2: Hollie & Steve
March 9: Calix
March 16: Sam
March 23: Dan
March 30: (Hollie and whomever wants to help?)
ACTION Calix add these to The Calendar once Sam confirms
S: How to coordinate with Hollie about shadowing?
H: DM on Mastodon, or email. Zulip could work, usually forget to check it.
M: Seems like this time works OK? March 20th, same π¦ time, same π¦ channel.
H: Works for me too.
C: π
D: π
H: Would 27th be better?
M: We’ve been trying to do 3rd Friday of the month.
D: Bonfire. Any opinions? Treating it as "demo"? Or taking it on as moderated space? Is there some boilerplate warning we should be including?
H: Don’t know what it is?
D: I don’t feel like I really understand moderation over there tbh
C: Fediverse software. A lot of overlap with Mastodon rn - but more features, and possibility for other apps beyond microblogging - and way better governance. Maybe Google+-style But feels very wacky to be running two overlapping instances — especially given how many requests we’ve had for less-overlapping software (funkwhale, peertube, etc.) we haven’t done. And I don’t think it’s linked up with SSO, so on that basis alone would be against keeping it as anything more than a "this will all be deleted" tech demo, otherwise it’s avoidably increasing work for eventual migration of mastodon to SSO. Only argument in favour of hosting it is that public bonfire instances don’t federate so we need our own instance to get a real sense. And medium-long-term do like the idea of switching from mastodon to bonfire — would be a huge tech challenge.
D: Getting moderation going on the experiment is maybe a short-term need. Is there someone who could show us the ropes on moderation?
M: Flancian maybe?
D: Open to possibility that "we don’t need this experiment". Or we could decide our lack of moderation experience on TWG is a justification for not doing this experiment now, could always do it later.
H: Like experiment, fun to explore new thing. But agree with fun to try less-overlapping things. Tech team’s opinions on other services.
S: Why are we?
M: Flancian thought it would be fun.
S: Hearing that it’s similar to Mastodon, shouldn’t be taking Social.coop resources to run it without a clear investigation, goal. Let folks do experiments if it’s fun but not put coΓΆp resources to it. Also love playing with new things, checking out new tech. And build new federated things that aren’t microblogging? Interested in that if there’s something useful we can do with it.
H: Agree we’ve had problems with Mastodon governance.
M: Can we send Dan & Calix to TWG to bring these concerns?
D: Or OC? What is the process?
M: OC meeting (26th Feb) before next TWG meeting (4th March).
ACTION Melissa Post in OC channel on Zulip asking for concerns / excitement about Bonfire
Dan had a conflict, but is fine being on the moderator rotation wherever we need him
Django can’t do working hours meetings or moderation, settling in to new job (just to be aware)
KeyCloak instance is our future happiness for SSO - it is what we use for the wiki
is deployed using co-op cloud
next meeting:
Calix, can we meet an hour earlier or later
let’s try an hour later next month - AGREED 2/20 18:00 UTC
calendaring:
google calendar not updating from next cloud as expected (should update every 12 hours), annoying for getting this meetings
