One question I wanted to raise is about the good standing clause for the board seats. Right now it’s just “not currently banned”, was there any consideration for “not temp banned in the past 6/12 months?”
This may be a moot point with the new rules and such, if points-based temp bans are out. I assume the board/mod review of candidates for moderators will already down-select people with extensive moderation histories so I’m not concerned as much there.
I’m throwing in my hat that if people want to see the more personal posts in the private forum then they should not simply be able to access by making an account and waiting. Those more personal posts should be for the active participants who are sharing with the people they interact directly with.
Otherwise why have private forums at all if all you have to do is register an account and wait a month?
So full membership and access to private forums should require at least posting some so folks can know SOMETHING about you. Lurkers can still lurk conversations about games, media, etc.
So I definitely understand this. What is the difference between someone who is lurking for 6 months or whatever versus someone who made 5/10/20/100 non-sense posts in a random joke thread 6 months ago and has done nothing since? You can't force engagement. People will do the minimum they have to and then have a bitter taste in their mouth towards posting because it was a forced interaction rather than organic.
I would ask those who are currently debating the qualifiers for voting to consider how many forumers actually vote now.
While I understand concerns over safeguarding CoRe against bad faith actors, we should potentially be mindful that we have been struggling to get 30% of the forums right now to vote on stuff.
Putting more restrictions on lurkers may not be the win it appears down the road?
Voting is less of a concern to me than limiting them being assholes. We've had a fairly obnoxious harassment problem, at least in the past few years.
The lack of voters currently would be part of the problem if we just tie it to posts or a small window. It'd be trivial to spin up a few hundred new accounts over a few months or a year or so to start futzing with future votes. Even if you track browser uniqueness like advertisers do that's easy enough to fake or obfuscate too. New users can wait a few months before being able to vote on things, that's not an overly punishing request.
Current lurkers (with accounts) wouldn't really be impacted.
If this is a legitimate concern, I don't know if establishing a longer approval window for new users is going to truly combat that?
Because if someone is quietly assembling a voting force to unleash on any CoRe elections, having them wait two or three months doesn't seem like a preventive measure against it.
It could be a legitimate concern. Thirty days makes this exceedingly trivial to amass enough to change things.
One would have to be truly committed to the cause to wait out 6 month windows. But you could also get around this with a collective action if you were able to motivate enough people outside the community to swing in. There does exist a few communities outside of here, and I know at least one of them that has ex-pa members with axes to grind that outnumbers us.. or at least how many folks have been voting.
Does the governance groups have a document or solution to hostile takeovers yet? It might seem silly or crazy, but I've seen crazier shit happen and the focus over community votes and democracies opens you right up to this kind of attack.
The issue here is it would be incredibly obvious there's a massive, anomolous influx of new, non-spam accounts and would, I would hope, be something the people in charge would keep an eye on.
Also if they managed this invasive brigade in the first place, it'd be trivial to have them throw a few posts here and there to breech whatever threshold we set up to separate them from the categories of "suspicious lurkers" and "upstanding members." Especially in the day and age of AI generation, they wouldn't even have to put much effort into it to pass the bare minimum.
Just a general reminder to be kind and thoughtful in your responses here, folks. Ask for clarification before you assume intent, ignore and report rather than engage and get in a fight, and stick to the topics at hand.
Any breaches of the rules will result in temp thread kicks, with escalation if it continues after the kick expires.
is there any merit to posting as an additional influence on the time requirement instead of an OR or a BOTH?
like starting at a higher baseline timeframe to full membership that can be reduced by posting activity down to some set floor? example 2 month baseline + 30 posts = 1 month to full member?
One question I wanted to raise is about the good standing clause for the board seats. Right now it’s just “not currently banned”, was there any consideration for “not temp banned in the past 6/12 months?”
This may be a moot point with the new rules and such, if points-based temp bans are out. I assume the board/mod review of candidates for moderators will already down-select people with extensive moderation histories so I’m not concerned as much there.
One topic we've discussed but not directly captured in the documents here is to handle members who have, to borrow your phrasing, "extensive moderation histories." If somebody has a pattern of minor conduct issues but never quite crosses the line into a permaban, that's something we need to address. It's still an open discussion how we address it, particularly in situations where the individual is generally acting in good faith but might just need an attitude adjustment. (It's also something that's not exactly governance, though it does overlap, so I don't necessarily expect we'll capture it in governance documents.)
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
One question I wanted to raise is about the good standing clause for the board seats. Right now it’s just “not currently banned”, was there any consideration for “not temp banned in the past 6/12 months?”
This may be a moot point with the new rules and such, if points-based temp bans are out. I assume the board/mod review of candidates for moderators will already down-select people with extensive moderation histories so I’m not concerned as much there.
I'm not sure about this.
On the one hand, I agree that someone who just came off a temp-ban probably does not have the temperament to be a good mod.
On the other hand, what if the temp ban was made for spurious reasons?
On the third, auxiliary back-up hand, if the ban was spurious, it probably would've been overturned on appeal, and so wouldn't count.
I think if you tried to implement this as a rule, you'd have to put a bunch of thought into what counts as a "temp-ban" - does a 24 hour timeout count? And so on. Ultimately, it's probably easier to just trust that the existing mods and board can weigh this stuff on their own without having to spell it out in a rule. Someone who got temp-banned is probably not going to make it through the whole mod selection process, whether or not there's an explicit rule barring him.
Would you say I had a plethora of pinatas?
Legos are cool, MOCs are cool, check me out on Rebrickable!
One question I wanted to raise is about the good standing clause for the board seats. Right now it’s just “not currently banned”, was there any consideration for “not temp banned in the past 6/12 months?”
This may be a moot point with the new rules and such, if points-based temp bans are out. I assume the board/mod review of candidates for moderators will already down-select people with extensive moderation histories so I’m not concerned as much there.
One topic we've discussed but not directly captured in the documents here is to handle members who have, to borrow your phrasing, "extensive moderation histories." If somebody has a pattern of minor conduct issues but never quite crosses the line into a permaban, that's something we need to address. It's still an open discussion how we address it, particularly in situations where the individual is generally acting in good faith but might just need an attitude adjustment. (It's also something that's not exactly governance, though it does overlap, so I don't necessarily expect we'll capture it in governance documents.)
So the rules do have a solution that maybe is helpful and will be more on display today. Repeatedly pushing the line, and trying to game the moderation system the way others have in the past is called out explicitly. Mods will, if the proposal goes through, be empowered to deal with those who want to dance on the edge of the line for fun. Further discussion probably best saved for the rules discussion when it happens, but figured I would flag it here since it is relevant.
is there any merit to posting as an additional influence on the time requirement instead of an OR or a BOTH?
like starting at a higher baseline timeframe to full membership that can be reduced by posting activity down to some set floor? example 2 month baseline + 30 posts = 1 month to full member?
I think - and this applied to this whole endeavor in general, not just your suggestion - that there is value in keeping things as simple as we can get away with. Over-engineering can be a problem, especially when it's in service of something that probably comes down to edge cases. I don't feel we gain a lot from developing a formula to determine when you get to be a full member versus just having a simple rule, and I say this as someone who loves formulas.
Would you say I had a plethora of pinatas?
Legos are cool, MOCs are cool, check me out on Rebrickable!
One question I wanted to raise is about the good standing clause for the board seats. Right now it’s just “not currently banned”, was there any consideration for “not temp banned in the past 6/12 months?”
This may be a moot point with the new rules and such, if points-based temp bans are out. I assume the board/mod review of candidates for moderators will already down-select people with extensive moderation histories so I’m not concerned as much there.
I'm not sure about this.
On the one hand, I agree that someone who just came off a temp-ban probably does not have the temperament to be a good mod.
On the other hand, what if the temp ban was made for spurious reasons?
On the third, auxiliary back-up hand, if the ban was spurious, it probably would've been overturned on appeal, and so wouldn't count.
I think if you tried to implement this as a rule, you'd have to put a bunch of thought into what counts as a "temp-ban" - does a 24 hour timeout count? And so on. Ultimately, it's probably easier to just trust that the existing mods and board can weigh this stuff on their own without having to spell it out in a rule. Someone who got temp-banned is probably not going to make it through the whole mod selection process, whether or not there's an explicit rule barring him.
For counting a temp-ban, I would just use whatever definition the KD is using for the temp-ban line (that requires a majority of mod buy-in and can be appealed).
Also, not so much worried about this hypothetical person becoming a mod, due to having to pass board and mod review before even getting to the ratification vote. My main ask was more about board members. If someone is getting temp-banned on points, should that person be allowed to run for a board seat, especially if that comes with access to PII?
One question I wanted to raise is about the good standing clause for the board seats. Right now it’s just “not currently banned”, was there any consideration for “not temp banned in the past 6/12 months?”
This may be a moot point with the new rules and such, if points-based temp bans are out. I assume the board/mod review of candidates for moderators will already down-select people with extensive moderation histories so I’m not concerned as much there.
One topic we've discussed but not directly captured in the documents here is to handle members who have, to borrow your phrasing, "extensive moderation histories." If somebody has a pattern of minor conduct issues but never quite crosses the line into a permaban, that's something we need to address. It's still an open discussion how we address it, particularly in situations where the individual is generally acting in good faith but might just need an attitude adjustment. (It's also something that's not exactly governance, though it does overlap, so I don't necessarily expect we'll capture it in governance documents.)
Makes sense. Hard needle to thread, honestly haven’t seen many places on the internet that have found a good way to deal with that type of user.
One question I wanted to raise is about the good standing clause for the board seats. Right now it’s just “not currently banned”, was there any consideration for “not temp banned in the past 6/12 months?”
This may be a moot point with the new rules and such, if points-based temp bans are out. I assume the board/mod review of candidates for moderators will already down-select people with extensive moderation histories so I’m not concerned as much there.
I'm not sure about this.
On the one hand, I agree that someone who just came off a temp-ban probably does not have the temperament to be a good mod.
On the other hand, what if the temp ban was made for spurious reasons?
On the third, auxiliary back-up hand, if the ban was spurious, it probably would've been overturned on appeal, and so wouldn't count.
I think if you tried to implement this as a rule, you'd have to put a bunch of thought into what counts as a "temp-ban" - does a 24 hour timeout count? And so on. Ultimately, it's probably easier to just trust that the existing mods and board can weigh this stuff on their own without having to spell it out in a rule. Someone who got temp-banned is probably not going to make it through the whole mod selection process, whether or not there's an explicit rule barring him.
Don't forget the fourth hand, some folks were younger and dumber and the person they are today might be very different from the person they were 5, 10, 15, 20+ years ago. You don't necessarily want to always push down folks who were awful teenagers but are better now in their adult lives, even if their early adult lives weren't as good as they are today even.
One question I wanted to raise is about the good standing clause for the board seats. Right now it’s just “not currently banned”, was there any consideration for “not temp banned in the past 6/12 months?”
This may be a moot point with the new rules and such, if points-based temp bans are out. I assume the board/mod review of candidates for moderators will already down-select people with extensive moderation histories so I’m not concerned as much there.
I'm not sure about this.
On the one hand, I agree that someone who just came off a temp-ban probably does not have the temperament to be a good mod.
On the other hand, what if the temp ban was made for spurious reasons?
On the third, auxiliary back-up hand, if the ban was spurious, it probably would've been overturned on appeal, and so wouldn't count.
I think if you tried to implement this as a rule, you'd have to put a bunch of thought into what counts as a "temp-ban" - does a 24 hour timeout count? And so on. Ultimately, it's probably easier to just trust that the existing mods and board can weigh this stuff on their own without having to spell it out in a rule. Someone who got temp-banned is probably not going to make it through the whole mod selection process, whether or not there's an explicit rule barring him.
Don't forget the fourth hand, some folks were younger and dumber and the person they are today might be very different from the person they were 5, 10, 15, 20+ years ago. You don't necessarily want to always push down folks who were awful teenagers but are better now in their adult lives, even if their early adult lives weren't as good as they are today even.
Oh I don’t mean to disqualify anyone forever, more of a cooldown from the return-from-ban, similar to how people are usually on thinner ice for a bit afterwards. Like 3-6 months?
I appreciate that the board will be voted on before mods are selected. Does this mean we will have board elections prior to CoRe going live? If yes, what is the timeline?
Where you state:
The overall plan is to ratify ALL of the mission critical KDs at once into our Bylaws in a single ratification once we've gotten feedback on all of them and they're all in a place where we're confident that the community is satisfied with them. There are 7 KDs we consider MVPs.
seems at odds with:
...so please treat this as your final chance to say yes or no to these Key Decisions.
I know that's not the intention, so just pointing it out.
KD06
5 elected board members (Directors). DEIA is appointed by Directors. President is appointed by Directors and DEIA. But DEIA is a Director position, so could just say Directors. DEIA and President are noted as having a vote, other positions do not. Is it intentional that they don't have a vote?
How big will the team be? (Seems to be 11 after reading KD04) Are the EOs limited to board members only? Will it be 5 elected members, 5 elected, 2 appointed, with 4 of 5 directors as EOs, or 11 members in total (5 board, DEIA, 5 executives)? If 11 and all have voting rights, then we will have an unelected majority.
KD01
KD01-A - I would move Good Standing to KD06, and reference KD06 for the definitions. Only defining Member but not Moderator or Director feels odd.
KD01-B - How will ties be handled? How will number of average daily active members be determined? Will this number be visible to all members? Is it the previous 30 days from the start of the vote or the completion?
KD01-C - It is unclear which of these activities would fall under the scope of the Board vote only and which fall under general member voting.
Which category do the KD documents fall under? Threshold type "Single Transferable Vote" is not defined. Can a director's vote be delegated to another? If yes, must the other person be a director also, or could a member/moderator act as a delegate?
Removal of Moderator should have the same thresholds as Removal from the Board (Supermajority except in case of misconduct).
Threshold notes for self:
Board thresholds - Members / Majority / Supermajority / Tie Possible
5 - 3 - 3 - No
6 - 3 - 4 - Yes
7 - 4 - 5 - No
8 - 4 - 6 - Yes
9 - 5 - 6 - No
10 - 5 - 7 - Yes
11 - 6 - 8 - No
KD04 KD04-A
How is a position recognized as vacant? I ask because frequently people just stop posting and we never find out what happened.
Steps (1) and (2): Is there a cutoff date prior to the election for nominations?
Step (3)(a) - I think three years is too long of a period and suggest a maximum of one year.
Step (3)(b) - I would add a restriction that the user has not been temp banned over the same time period as (3)(a). Otherwise, I think we could skip (3)(b) entirely as currently good standing is defined as "not banned".
KD04-B
Current Moderator List from PAF for my reference, ~9 active mods:
I am not a fan of limiting the number of moderators at 9 to 11, as I would prefer the number to grow or shrink depending on the growth or shrink of our community. This also requires sufficient quality of candidates to apply, else this could lead to questionable staffing decisions in order to meet a quota.
Steps (1) and (2): Is there a cutoff date prior to the election for nominations?
Step (4)(f) I suggest changing this to a percentage instead (e.g. 25%, round up).
Step (5) Add a reminder that the normal rules about forum drama apply.
Step (6) Why one candidate? If we have to select 11 mods through this process we'll still be at it this time next year.
KD04-C
For Board of Director Initiated member removal, please state that the person under consideration is not allowed to vote. Otherwise that one vote puts them a significant way towards being able to block a supermajority. At 7 voting members, it is the difference between having a majority and supermajority.
Why can EOs only be removed by the board, and not by community vote?
KD04-D
I think that the threshold for mod removal by the board for violations should be Majority only (as with the board). I think the voting limit on moderator proposed mod removal should be Majority since it will also have to be voted on by the board.
0
minor incidentpublicly subsidized!privately profitable!Registered User, Transition Teamregular
I appreciate that the board will be voted on before mods are selected. Does this mean we will have board elections prior to CoRe going live? If yes, what is the timeline?
Where you state:
The overall plan is to ratify ALL of the mission critical KDs at once into our Bylaws in a single ratification once we've gotten feedback on all of them and they're all in a place where we're confident that the community is satisfied with them. There are 7 KDs we consider MVPs.
seems at odds with:
...so please treat this as your final chance to say yes or no to these Key Decisions.
I know that's not the intention, so just pointing it out.
The idea is to have that election before going live at CoRe, and we're hoping to juuuust make it. Worst case, if there's a delay, the plan will be to move over with the interim board and existing PA mods who are willing to continue temporarily, and then have the election as soon as possible after the move.
As for the ratification, yeah, the intent with that was that this was essentially the final open session for community comment and feedback (unless it had gone VERY badly), and that the next time will be a presentation of these KD's (with any necessary feedback incorporated) along with the other mission critical KDs that are still to come, up for a simple yea/nay ratification vote. So that'll still be a chance for people to voice their dissent, but we're hoping all the real actionable feedback gets out right here in this session -- which has been going very well so far.
KD06
5 elected board members (Directors). DEIA is appointed by Directors. President is appointed by Directors and DEIA. But DEIA is a Director position, so could just say Directors. DEIA and President are noted as having a vote, other positions do not. Is it intentional that they don't have a vote?
How big will the team be? (Seems to be 11 after reading KD04) Are the EOs limited to board members only? Will it be 5 elected members, 5 elected, 2 appointed, with 4 of 5 directors as EOs, or 11 members in total (5 board, DEIA, 5 executives)? If 11 and all have voting rights, then we will have an unelected majority.
All 7 Directors have a vote -- unless I'm missing what you're pointing out, the bullet point of "Votes on Board of Directors actions" is included on both the "Directors" (which references the 5 elected Directors), as well as the DEIA Director, and the President. Executive Officers do not get a vote on the Board of Directors actions (aside from the President, who serves on both sides as a Director and a member of the EO team). So the total potential number of votes on all Board actions is 7 -- 5 from the elected Directors, and 2 from the appointed DEIA Director and President.
Executive Officers can be anyone the board selects for the positions, and they need not be board members (and in most cases, ideally, they wouldn't be, to help spread out the weight of duties better). In most companies I have experience with, the Executive Officers don't change very often unless one decides to step down or the board finds that they're guilty of some type of malfeasance. In theory, as long as the EOs are doing their jobs well, it keeps things running much smoother on the Corporate side if the people handling the bank accounts and meeting minutes and tax documents and such aren't shuffled in and out every year or two.
The EOs are generally focused on a specific task and aren't responsible for other general forum governance outside of their focus. The Treasurer is just there to handle the money and bank accounts. The Secretary is just there to handle meeting minutes and keep our corporate document library. The Technical Admin is just there to handle the technical side of the forum maintenance and development. None of them have any role in determining policy or making decisions for the company or the forums outside of their role. The exception is the President, who is tasked by the board to carry out their directives as the hands-on party, and to be the responsible person for the forums in terms of ensuring we follow applicable laws, and handling situations where we may need a representative to interact with other companies or entities. Due to the nature of the large number of responsibilities on that role, they also get a board seat to be allowed a vote in the direction along with the rest of the Board, but at the end of the day they answer to the Board as a whole in all regards.
KD01
KD01-B - How will ties be handled? How will number of average daily active members be determined? Will this number be visible to all members? Is it the previous 30 days from the start of the vote or the completion?
Technically a tie would be a vote that missed a majority by 1 vote, and thus would fail to pass (Majority being 50%+1 vote).
Reports can be generated on demand to give us daily active members, and would be based on the preceding 30 day average at the time a vote begins. It's not accessible directly by regular users, but would be declared at the start of a vote.
KD01-C - It is unclear which of these activities would fall under the scope of the Board vote only and which fall under general member voting.
All the decisions in this table refer to community-wide votes that are put forth by the Board.
Which category do the KD documents fall under? Threshold type "Single Transferable Vote" is not defined. Can a director's vote be delegated to another? If yes, must the other person be a director also, or could a member/moderator act as a delegate?
Not sure what you mean by the first part.
Single Transferable Vote is a type of ranked choice voting, and is further defined in KD04-A
We discussed, at one point, the ability for Board members to delegate their vote to a proxy, but I don't believe anything came of it. Open to compelling arguments for the need, however I think the general feeling was that the ability to simply abstain was enough.
Removal of Moderator should have the same thresholds as Removal from the Board (Supermajority except in case of misconduct).
They're both Supermajority, unless I'm missing something (entirely possible, having read through this thing a hundred times, tbh). Or are you just saying that there should be a carveout to lower the threshold to Majority in cases of alleged misconduct?
KD04 KD04-A
How is a position recognized as vacant? I ask because frequently people just stop posting and we never find out what happened.
A board member stepping down, or being removed by the rest of the board. If a Board member has been out of communication for an unusual amount of time, it would be up to the rest of the board to use their best judgment to call for and vote on their removal.
KD04-B
I am not a fan of limiting the number of moderators at 9 to 11, as I would prefer the number to grow or shrink depending on the growth or shrink of our community. This also requires sufficient quality of candidates to apply, else this could lead to questionable staffing decisions in order to meet a quota.
We felt that the range allowed for some flexibility -- we don't need to fill 11 seats if we only have 10 good candidates. The range as a whole was determined based on current mod staffing levels and several discussions with those mods. As it stands now, we likely have about 6 actual active mods, and it is clear that we could use better coverage. This number can always be adjusted through the proper methods later if it proves excessive or insufficient.
Step (6) Why one candidate? If we have to select 11 mods through this process we'll still be at it this time next year.
I think this is just phrasing. If more than one mod appointment fails ratification, new options would be presented all at once, not one at a time. So if 4 mods are presented and 2 do not pass ratification, 2 new options would then be presented together for the next round of ratification votes.
KD04-C
For Board of Director Initiated member removal, please state that the person under consideration is not allowed to vote. Otherwise that one vote puts them a significant way towards being able to block a supermajority. At 7 voting members, it is the difference between having a majority and supermajority.
Good point, and I thought that was in there. Will discuss.
Why can EOs only be removed by the board, and not by community vote?
Simply put -- the community will have very little to do with these Officers in the course of their duties, and even less insight into how well or poorly they're doing their job. And since these are more along the lines of task-specific job appointments, it makes more sense to only allow the body responsible for appointing them and overseeing them to have a hand in their removal if needed.
Unlike moderators, for example, who necessarily interact with the community on a daily basis, and whose actions are far more visible and transparent to that community.
Hope that makes sense!
Hell, New Jersey, it said on the letter. Delivered without comment. So be it!
I appreciate that the board will be voted on before mods are selected. Does this mean we will have board elections prior to CoRe going live? If yes, what is the timeline?
Where you state:
The overall plan is to ratify ALL of the mission critical KDs at once into our Bylaws in a single ratification once we've gotten feedback on all of them and they're all in a place where we're confident that the community is satisfied with them. There are 7 KDs we consider MVPs.
seems at odds with:
...so please treat this as your final chance to say yes or no to these Key Decisions.
I know that's not the intention, so just pointing it out.
KD06
5 elected board members (Directors). DEIA is appointed by Directors. President is appointed by Directors and DEIA. But DEIA is a Director position, so could just say Directors. DEIA and President are noted as having a vote, other positions do not. Is it intentional that they don't have a vote?
How big will the team be? (Seems to be 11 after reading KD04) Are the EOs limited to board members only? Will it be 5 elected members, 5 elected, 2 appointed, with 4 of 5 directors as EOs, or 11 members in total (5 board, DEIA, 5 executives)? If 11 and all have voting rights, then we will have an unelected majority.
KD01
KD01-A - I would move Good Standing to KD06, and reference KD06 for the definitions. Only defining Member but not Moderator or Director feels odd.
KD01-B - How will ties be handled? How will number of average daily active members be determined? Will this number be visible to all members? Is it the previous 30 days from the start of the vote or the completion?
KD01-C - It is unclear which of these activities would fall under the scope of the Board vote only and which fall under general member voting.
Which category do the KD documents fall under? Threshold type "Single Transferable Vote" is not defined. Can a director's vote be delegated to another? If yes, must the other person be a director also, or could a member/moderator act as a delegate?
Removal of Moderator should have the same thresholds as Removal from the Board (Supermajority except in case of misconduct).
Threshold notes for self:
Board thresholds - Members / Majority / Supermajority / Tie Possible
5 - 3 - 3 - No
6 - 3 - 4 - Yes
7 - 4 - 5 - No
8 - 4 - 6 - Yes
9 - 5 - 6 - No
10 - 5 - 7 - Yes
11 - 6 - 8 - No
KD04 KD04-A
How is a position recognized as vacant? I ask because frequently people just stop posting and we never find out what happened.
Steps (1) and (2): Is there a cutoff date prior to the election for nominations?
Step (3)(a) - I think three years is too long of a period and suggest a maximum of one year.
Step (3)(b) - I would add a restriction that the user has not been temp banned over the same time period as (3)(a). Otherwise, I think we could skip (3)(b) entirely as currently good standing is defined as "not banned".
KD04-B
Current Moderator List from PAF for my reference, ~9 active mods:
I am not a fan of limiting the number of moderators at 9 to 11, as I would prefer the number to grow or shrink depending on the growth or shrink of our community. This also requires sufficient quality of candidates to apply, else this could lead to questionable staffing decisions in order to meet a quota.
Steps (1) and (2): Is there a cutoff date prior to the election for nominations?
Step (4)(f) I suggest changing this to a percentage instead (e.g. 25%, round up).
Step (5) Add a reminder that the normal rules about forum drama apply.
Step (6) Why one candidate? If we have to select 11 mods through this process we'll still be at it this time next year.
KD04-C
For Board of Director Initiated member removal, please state that the person under consideration is not allowed to vote. Otherwise that one vote puts them a significant way towards being able to block a supermajority. At 7 voting members, it is the difference between having a majority and supermajority.
Why can EOs only be removed by the board, and not by community vote?
KD04-D
I think that the threshold for mod removal by the board for violations should be Majority only (as with the board). I think the voting limit on moderator proposed mod removal should be Majority since it will also have to be voted on by the board.
Going through your questions:
(1) The Board of Directors is 7 members. Directors, who are elected, a DEIA Director, and a President. This is in KD6.
(2) The Board of Directors does not include EOs, and Directors and EOs do not overlap. This is in KD04-A.
(3) KD01-A was left there for people to easily reference the definitions, but we'll put Good Standing in KD6 as well.
(4) There won't be ties via the thresholds laid out?
(5) Average daily active members is determined on the back-end. If a person is active (i.e. logged in) on a certain day, they count towards that day. The average of those days' counts over 30 days is the number.
(6) Don't know if the number needs to be visible all the time, but it seems reasonable to include it as part of the poll that quorum = X.
(7) The KD1-C thresholds are just thresholds, the process for the changes are in KD04.
(8) Key decisions aren't listed, but that's something we'll discuss.
(9) STV is in KD4.
(10) A director's vote cannot be delegated to another.
(11) The thresholds for removing Moderators and Board Members is the same.
(12) We haven't written misconduct yet, but I would say a Board Member that has stopped participating can be removed for misconduct. Moderators are checked in with periodically and if they stop participating they can also be removed.
(13) Missed this earlier, but 30 days from the start of the vote.
(14) Cut off would likely be the day before the vote.
(15) I am highly against a one year period. Three might be too long, but one is too short.
(16) See previous discussion on temp-banned.
(17) We settled on 9-11 for now, but the number will likely change as the community size changes.
(18) Same as with the Board, probably day before.
(19) Good point on a % rather than an outright number, we'll have to think through that.
(20) I'm not sure what you're referring to about forum drama.
(21) All moderator positions can be put to a vote at the same time, each one is just an up/down ratification. If there are 5 vacancies, the Board can put up 5 nominees.
(22) Good point about the BoD voting on their own removal. We'll have to think about that.
(23) EOs are not involved in community management, they're responsible for the organization. Since the community only has say via the Board of Directors on who is an EO, it doesn't make sense for the community to have direct say on their removal.
(24) Moderator removal threshold is the same as Board, supermajority, so they're not different.
(25) Fair point on the Mod removal, we'll have to think about it.
I noticed that if a moderator is removed, the board submits a report to the community on the outcome, but there's no such report provided if a governance member is removed. Is this intentional? It feels like, in the interest of transparency, if a governance member is booted for some reason, the community should be given information on what-all went down.
Would you say I had a plethora of pinatas?
Legos are cool, MOCs are cool, check me out on Rebrickable!
I’m throwing in my hat that if people want to see the more personal posts in the private forum then they should not simply be able to access by making an account and waiting. Those more personal posts should be for the active participants who are sharing with the people they interact directly with.
Otherwise why have private forums at all if all you have to do is register an account and wait a month?
So full membership and access to private forums should require at least posting some so folks can know SOMETHING about you. Lurkers can still lurk conversations about games, media, etc.
So I definitely understand this. What is the difference between someone who is lurking for 6 months or whatever versus someone who made 5/10/20/100 non-sense posts in a random joke thread 6 months ago and has done nothing since? You can't force engagement. People will do the minimum they have to and then have a bitter taste in their mouth towards posting because it was a forced interaction rather than organic.
It’s a balancing act, but I see the minimum being simply registering and waiting as more concerning for access to the private boards. At least someone making nonsense posts we can look back and see that they’re posting nonsense.
And like I said, I’m not supporting requiring posting for voting and access to the public boards because I do think lurkers are a part of the community and should have some say in how it is run. I’m just saying some direct engagement would be nice to access the threads where folks will be most likely to talk about their jobs, their families, their politics, and their personal lives. People can still game it, obviously. But like if someone just posts “I’m making this post for access” or 20 “lols” or Lorem ipsums or ai drivel then it could also be easier for mods to ensure that malicious folks aren’t getting to the personal stuff.
Games and media and the other public forums are most likely to be appealing to lurker types anyway.
Thanks MI and Gereg. Gereg picked up what I meant by category, and on the removal vote I would like a lowered threshold in cases of mod misconduct, just like the board of directors has.
But at the same time, it's rarely difficulty to spot a new alt or return of someone who just won't take Banned for an answer. Joined today or very recently. Hops right into contentious political threads with searing hot takes. Has a chip on their shoulder the size of a boulder for certain long time posters.
This, I think, is something a lot of folks aren't considering. The mod staff review every new account created at this point. We're small enough that it's a few minutes a day for 'em. After talking with them about the process, it's clear that they have very little trouble spotting spammers, alts, former banned users trying to get back in, and other ne'er-do-wells. I don't anticipate that this would change dramatically, so I'm inclined to believe that between this and the 20/30 requirement for new accounts, we probably won't be inundated with ill-intentioned assholes infiltrating the forums.
I'm not sure I'm missing it. We don't see nearly as many as we used to, and I appreciate that this is likely due to said efforts by the moderators doing said work.
But it wasn't rare, and it wasn't that long ago, that I'd sniff 'em out and then watch them get banned for being an alt days or weeks later.
Obviously, having a system that is accessible will require leaving the door open a smidge, and I'm doubtful that anyone is determined enough to do some kind of long running slow burn flood of alt accounts for nefarious means (other than ElJeffe, but that's a known issue).
I don't think we should overengineer things, as I said, it shouldn't require some forum ninja warrior type shenanigans just to come post about ones favourite show, book, or political topic.
It's not even really something that I think has a takeaway or action item. More just 'this is something I've seen, repeatedly, over literal years, and while I hope the processes in the upcoming forum cover most of the bases, now is when we were asked for concerns and feedback, so I'm givin' y'all some feedback. :-D
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
I’m throwing in my hat that if people want to see the more personal posts in the private forum then they should not simply be able to access by making an account and waiting. Those more personal posts should be for the active participants who are sharing with the people they interact directly with.
Otherwise why have private forums at all if all you have to do is register an account and wait a month?
So full membership and access to private forums should require at least posting some so folks can know SOMETHING about you. Lurkers can still lurk conversations about games, media, etc.
So I definitely understand this. What is the difference between someone who is lurking for 6 months or whatever versus someone who made 5/10/20/100 non-sense posts in a random joke thread 6 months ago and has done nothing since? You can't force engagement. People will do the minimum they have to and then have a bitter taste in their mouth towards posting because it was a forced interaction rather than organic.
It’s a balancing act, but I see the minimum being simply registering and waiting as more concerning for access to the private boards. At least someone making nonsense posts we can look back and see that they’re posting nonsense.
And like I said, I’m not supporting requiring posting for voting and access to the public boards because I do think lurkers are a part of the community and should have some say in how it is run. I’m just saying some direct engagement would be nice to access the threads where folks will be most likely to talk about their jobs, their families, their politics, and their personal lives. People can still game it, obviously. But like if someone just posts “I’m making this post for access” or 20 “lols” or Lorem ipsums or ai drivel then it could also be easier for mods to ensure that malicious folks aren’t getting to the personal stuff.
Games and media and the other public forums are most likely to be appealing to lurker types anyway.
Hum. I can't say I like it personally, but I also can't argue against it much. This is a very fair point I slightly misunderstood. Thank you for the clarification.
is there any merit to posting as an additional influence on the time requirement instead of an OR or a BOTH?
like starting at a higher baseline timeframe to full membership that can be reduced by posting activity down to some set floor? example 2 month baseline + 30 posts = 1 month to full member?
I think - and this applied to this whole endeavor in general, not just your suggestion - that there is value in keeping things as simple as we can get away with. Over-engineering can be a problem, especially when it's in service of something that probably comes down to edge cases. I don't feel we gain a lot from developing a formula to determine when you get to be a full member versus just having a simple rule, and I say this as someone who loves formulas.
This is reasonable and I’m easily convinced we don’t need to add unnecessary complication. I suppose a lot of the problem is already caught in basic spam/bot filtering anyway and it’s really just giving too much attention to that one jerk carefully seeding alts over years to one day strike us down
0
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered User, Moderatormod
is there any merit to posting as an additional influence on the time requirement instead of an OR or a BOTH?
like starting at a higher baseline timeframe to full membership that can be reduced by posting activity down to some set floor? example 2 month baseline + 30 posts = 1 month to full member?
I think - and this applied to this whole endeavor in general, not just your suggestion - that there is value in keeping things as simple as we can get away with. Over-engineering can be a problem, especially when it's in service of something that probably comes down to edge cases. I don't feel we gain a lot from developing a formula to determine when you get to be a full member versus just having a simple rule, and I say this as someone who loves formulas.
This is reasonable and I’m easily convinced we don’t need to add unnecessary complication. I suppose a lot of the problem is already caught in basic spam/bot filtering anyway and it’s really just giving too much attention to that one jerk carefully seeding alts over years to one day strike us down
for what it's worth, even with the shit tools we have on Vanilla it would take an exceedingly clever and patient person to get away with something like this and it not be completely obvious
We should probably increase the account age beyond just being signed up for 30 days. Given some of the bullshit on the internet and the fact that this community does have some assholes with axes to grind against it. 30 days seems a bit too short and easy for them to navigate and potentially cause problems. Also in cases of people that are here to stir shit, 30 days doesn't seem sufficient for them to get a better read on what kind of community this is.
Still mauling some stuff over, one area I would like further clarification on though.
KD01-C: Forum Governance Decisions
Certain actions affecting the Coin Return Society (the legal entity) or the Coin Return Forums requires community discussion and agreement. The actions requiring community input include:
In regards to appointment of moderators, am I interpreted that as a full vote of the community? If so that's a deal break for because I don't want moderation to become a popularity contest, where we just get piss poor moderation as a result. I'd think given the community has the ability to remove a mode, should be sufficient for dealing with cases where a moderation does get out of hand. There it isn't a popularity contest, since if somehow has sour grapes about a mod, most of the community will likely vote it down and if a moderator is being a tyrant, probably most of the community will be on board with giving them a the boot.
ToxI kill threadsDilige, et quod vis facRegistered Userregular
Honestly I'm fine if we wanna just put in an addendum with "this will be 30 days for now but is expected to be reviewed post migration" or whatever is feasible.
I do want to talk more about it and maybe pick a different number, but I think we can table that specific discussion for the next ... 2ish months?
maybe the real panopticon was the friends we made along the way
0
minor incidentpublicly subsidized!privately profitable!Registered User, Transition Teamregular
We should probably increase the account age beyond just being signed up for 30 days. Given some of the bullshit on the internet and the fact that this community does have some assholes with axes to grind against it. 30 days seems a bit too short and easy for them to navigate and potentially cause problems. Also in cases of people that are here to stir shit, 30 days doesn't seem sufficient for them to get a better read on what kind of community this is.
Still mauling some stuff over, one area I would like further clarification on though.
KD01-C: Forum Governance Decisions
Certain actions affecting the Coin Return Society (the legal entity) or the Coin Return Forums requires community discussion and agreement. The actions requiring community input include:
In regards to appointment of moderators, am I interpreted that as a full vote of the community? If so that's a deal break for because I don't want moderation to become a popularity contest, where we just get piss poor moderation as a result. I'd think given the community has the ability to remove a mode, should be sufficient for dealing with cases where a moderation does get out of hand. There it isn't a popularity contest, since if somehow has sour grapes about a mod, most of the community will likely vote it down and if a moderator is being a tyrant, probably most of the community will be on board with giving them a the boot.
Just to be clear - as outlined in another section (I'm on my phone at the moment) mods are appointed by the Board, but just have to be "ratified" by the community when the board presents their choices. This is a simple up/down vote to confirm the Board's choices, and only has to reach 50%+1 to pass. Mods will never be competing for votes for fewer positions than there are candidates.
Hell, New Jersey, it said on the letter. Delivered without comment. So be it!
0
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered User, Moderatormod
We should probably increase the account age beyond just being signed up for 30 days. Given some of the bullshit on the internet and the fact that this community does have some assholes with axes to grind against it. 30 days seems a bit too short and easy for them to navigate and potentially cause problems. Also in cases of people that are here to stir shit, 30 days doesn't seem sufficient for them to get a better read on what kind of community this is.
Still mauling some stuff over, one area I would like further clarification on though.
KD01-C: Forum Governance Decisions
Certain actions affecting the Coin Return Society (the legal entity) or the Coin Return Forums requires community discussion and agreement. The actions requiring community input include:
In regards to appointment of moderators, am I interpreted that as a full vote of the community? If so that's a deal break for because I don't want moderation to become a popularity contest, where we just get piss poor moderation as a result. I'd think given the community has the ability to remove a mode, should be sufficient for dealing with cases where a moderation does get out of hand. There it isn't a popularity contest, since if somehow has sour grapes about a mod, most of the community will likely vote it down and if a moderator is being a tyrant, probably most of the community will be on board with giving them a the boot.
moderator candidates are selected through self-nomination or nomination by someone else with agreement (the idea currently is this will just be a form where you say you're interested)
the board then chooses enough candidates to fill the available slots
the community only votes to ratify the nominations
One question about board elections being something we are maybe doing under these rules with the STV vote and anyone able to be nominated for those positions.
How does campaigning work? Can I say 'shit this person has 30 dedicated followers but is unfit for the board'?
Moderator elections seem to have qualifications but board elections seem to be that unless you are presently banned, sure you could be on the board.
It’s a case of if you had bad experiences and their behaviour should be disqualifying, you ought to be reporting to an existing mod/ the TT the same as you would for anyone that you thought has stepped outside the bounds of acceptable behaviour.
The specific details around notifying the community about board applications/the voting list will come later, but as a broad rule I can’t imagine we will be inviting a struggle session for each board candidate.
I appreciate that the board will be voted on before mods are selected. Does this mean we will have board elections prior to CoRe going live? If yes, what is the timeline?
Where you state:
The overall plan is to ratify ALL of the mission critical KDs at once into our Bylaws in a single ratification once we've gotten feedback on all of them and they're all in a place where we're confident that the community is satisfied with them. There are 7 KDs we consider MVPs.
seems at odds with:
...so please treat this as your final chance to say yes or no to these Key Decisions.
I know that's not the intention, so just pointing it out.
KD06
5 elected board members (Directors). DEIA is appointed by Directors. President is appointed by Directors and DEIA. But DEIA is a Director position, so could just say Directors. DEIA and President are noted as having a vote, other positions do not. Is it intentional that they don't have a vote?
How big will the team be? (Seems to be 11 after reading KD04) Are the EOs limited to board members only? Will it be 5 elected members, 5 elected, 2 appointed, with 4 of 5 directors as EOs, or 11 members in total (5 board, DEIA, 5 executives)? If 11 and all have voting rights, then we will have an unelected majority.
KD01
KD01-A - I would move Good Standing to KD06, and reference KD06 for the definitions. Only defining Member but not Moderator or Director feels odd.
KD01-B - How will ties be handled? How will number of average daily active members be determined? Will this number be visible to all members? Is it the previous 30 days from the start of the vote or the completion?
KD01-C - It is unclear which of these activities would fall under the scope of the Board vote only and which fall under general member voting.
Which category do the KD documents fall under? Threshold type "Single Transferable Vote" is not defined. Can a director's vote be delegated to another? If yes, must the other person be a director also, or could a member/moderator act as a delegate?
Removal of Moderator should have the same thresholds as Removal from the Board (Supermajority except in case of misconduct).
Threshold notes for self:
Board thresholds - Members / Majority / Supermajority / Tie Possible
5 - 3 - 3 - No
6 - 3 - 4 - Yes
7 - 4 - 5 - No
8 - 4 - 6 - Yes
9 - 5 - 6 - No
10 - 5 - 7 - Yes
11 - 6 - 8 - No
KD04 KD04-A
How is a position recognized as vacant? I ask because frequently people just stop posting and we never find out what happened.
Steps (1) and (2): Is there a cutoff date prior to the election for nominations?
Step (3)(a) - I think three years is too long of a period and suggest a maximum of one year.
Step (3)(b) - I would add a restriction that the user has not been temp banned over the same time period as (3)(a). Otherwise, I think we could skip (3)(b) entirely as currently good standing is defined as "not banned".
KD04-B
Current Moderator List from PAF for my reference, ~9 active mods:
I am not a fan of limiting the number of moderators at 9 to 11, as I would prefer the number to grow or shrink depending on the growth or shrink of our community. This also requires sufficient quality of candidates to apply, else this could lead to questionable staffing decisions in order to meet a quota.
Steps (1) and (2): Is there a cutoff date prior to the election for nominations?
Step (4)(f) I suggest changing this to a percentage instead (e.g. 25%, round up).
Step (5) Add a reminder that the normal rules about forum drama apply.
Step (6) Why one candidate? If we have to select 11 mods through this process we'll still be at it this time next year.
KD04-C
For Board of Director Initiated member removal, please state that the person under consideration is not allowed to vote. Otherwise that one vote puts them a significant way towards being able to block a supermajority. At 7 voting members, it is the difference between having a majority and supermajority.
Why can EOs only be removed by the board, and not by community vote?
KD04-D
I think that the threshold for mod removal by the board for violations should be Majority only (as with the board). I think the voting limit on moderator proposed mod removal should be Majority since it will also have to be voted on by the board.
Going through your questions:
(1) The Board of Directors is 7 members. Directors, who are elected, a DEIA Director, and a President. This is in KD6.
(2) The Board of Directors does not include EOs, and Directors and EOs do not overlap. This is in KD04-A.
(3) KD01-A was left there for people to easily reference the definitions, but we'll put Good Standing in KD6 as well.
(4) There won't be ties via the thresholds laid out?
(5) Average daily active members is determined on the back-end. If a person is active (i.e. logged in) on a certain day, they count towards that day. The average of those days' counts over 30 days is the number.
(6) Don't know if the number needs to be visible all the time, but it seems reasonable to include it as part of the poll that quorum = X.
(7) The KD1-C thresholds are just thresholds, the process for the changes are in KD04.
(8) Key decisions aren't listed, but that's something we'll discuss.
(9) STV is in KD4.
(10) A director's vote cannot be delegated to another.
(11) The thresholds for removing Moderators and Board Members is the same.
(12) We haven't written misconduct yet, but I would say a Board Member that has stopped participating can be removed for misconduct. Moderators are checked in with periodically and if they stop participating they can also be removed.
(13) Missed this earlier, but 30 days from the start of the vote.
(14) Cut off would likely be the day before the vote.
(15) I am highly against a one year period. Three might be too long, but one is too short.
(16) See previous discussion on temp-banned.
(17) We settled on 9-11 for now, but the number will likely change as the community size changes.
(18) Same as with the Board, probably day before.
(19) Good point on a % rather than an outright number, we'll have to think through that.
(20) I'm not sure what you're referring to about forum drama.
(21) All moderator positions can be put to a vote at the same time, each one is just an up/down ratification. If there are 5 vacancies, the Board can put up 5 nominees.
(22) Good point about the BoD voting on their own removal. We'll have to think about that.
(23) EOs are not involved in community management, they're responsible for the organization. Since the community only has say via the Board of Directors on who is an EO, it doesn't make sense for the community to have direct say on their removal.
(24) Moderator removal threshold is the same as Board, supermajority, so they're not different.
(25) Fair point on the Mod removal, we'll have to think about it.
e: God damn it MI and I did it again.
On KD04-B, Step 5 (#20 on the list), we have an explicit statement that the discussions between the mods board and users is not confidential. I just would like a reminder here that this doesn't equate to allowing for a public airing of grievances.
After thinking about this a lot, I think women are underrepresented in positions of responsibility, and therefore propose adding the following to KD04-B:
4) g) Ensuring at least 25% of the moderators are women/female identifying.
I appreciate that the board will be voted on before mods are selected. Does this mean we will have board elections prior to CoRe going live? If yes, what is the timeline?
Where you state:
The overall plan is to ratify ALL of the mission critical KDs at once into our Bylaws in a single ratification once we've gotten feedback on all of them and they're all in a place where we're confident that the community is satisfied with them. There are 7 KDs we consider MVPs.
seems at odds with:
...so please treat this as your final chance to say yes or no to these Key Decisions.
I know that's not the intention, so just pointing it out.
KD06
5 elected board members (Directors). DEIA is appointed by Directors. President is appointed by Directors and DEIA. But DEIA is a Director position, so could just say Directors. DEIA and President are noted as having a vote, other positions do not. Is it intentional that they don't have a vote?
How big will the team be? (Seems to be 11 after reading KD04) Are the EOs limited to board members only? Will it be 5 elected members, 5 elected, 2 appointed, with 4 of 5 directors as EOs, or 11 members in total (5 board, DEIA, 5 executives)? If 11 and all have voting rights, then we will have an unelected majority.
KD01
KD01-A - I would move Good Standing to KD06, and reference KD06 for the definitions. Only defining Member but not Moderator or Director feels odd.
KD01-B - How will ties be handled? How will number of average daily active members be determined? Will this number be visible to all members? Is it the previous 30 days from the start of the vote or the completion?
KD01-C - It is unclear which of these activities would fall under the scope of the Board vote only and which fall under general member voting.
Which category do the KD documents fall under? Threshold type "Single Transferable Vote" is not defined. Can a director's vote be delegated to another? If yes, must the other person be a director also, or could a member/moderator act as a delegate?
Removal of Moderator should have the same thresholds as Removal from the Board (Supermajority except in case of misconduct).
Threshold notes for self:
Board thresholds - Members / Majority / Supermajority / Tie Possible
5 - 3 - 3 - No
6 - 3 - 4 - Yes
7 - 4 - 5 - No
8 - 4 - 6 - Yes
9 - 5 - 6 - No
10 - 5 - 7 - Yes
11 - 6 - 8 - No
KD04 KD04-A
How is a position recognized as vacant? I ask because frequently people just stop posting and we never find out what happened.
Steps (1) and (2): Is there a cutoff date prior to the election for nominations?
Step (3)(a) - I think three years is too long of a period and suggest a maximum of one year.
Step (3)(b) - I would add a restriction that the user has not been temp banned over the same time period as (3)(a). Otherwise, I think we could skip (3)(b) entirely as currently good standing is defined as "not banned".
KD04-B
Current Moderator List from PAF for my reference, ~9 active mods:
I am not a fan of limiting the number of moderators at 9 to 11, as I would prefer the number to grow or shrink depending on the growth or shrink of our community. This also requires sufficient quality of candidates to apply, else this could lead to questionable staffing decisions in order to meet a quota.
Steps (1) and (2): Is there a cutoff date prior to the election for nominations?
Step (4)(f) I suggest changing this to a percentage instead (e.g. 25%, round up).
Step (5) Add a reminder that the normal rules about forum drama apply.
Step (6) Why one candidate? If we have to select 11 mods through this process we'll still be at it this time next year.
KD04-C
For Board of Director Initiated member removal, please state that the person under consideration is not allowed to vote. Otherwise that one vote puts them a significant way towards being able to block a supermajority. At 7 voting members, it is the difference between having a majority and supermajority.
Why can EOs only be removed by the board, and not by community vote?
KD04-D
I think that the threshold for mod removal by the board for violations should be Majority only (as with the board). I think the voting limit on moderator proposed mod removal should be Majority since it will also have to be voted on by the board.
Going through your questions:
(1) The Board of Directors is 7 members. Directors, who are elected, a DEIA Director, and a President. This is in KD6.
(2) The Board of Directors does not include EOs, and Directors and EOs do not overlap. This is in KD04-A.
(3) KD01-A was left there for people to easily reference the definitions, but we'll put Good Standing in KD6 as well.
(4) There won't be ties via the thresholds laid out?
(5) Average daily active members is determined on the back-end. If a person is active (i.e. logged in) on a certain day, they count towards that day. The average of those days' counts over 30 days is the number.
(6) Don't know if the number needs to be visible all the time, but it seems reasonable to include it as part of the poll that quorum = X.
(7) The KD1-C thresholds are just thresholds, the process for the changes are in KD04.
(8) Key decisions aren't listed, but that's something we'll discuss.
(9) STV is in KD4.
(10) A director's vote cannot be delegated to another.
(11) The thresholds for removing Moderators and Board Members is the same.
(12) We haven't written misconduct yet, but I would say a Board Member that has stopped participating can be removed for misconduct. Moderators are checked in with periodically and if they stop participating they can also be removed.
(13) Missed this earlier, but 30 days from the start of the vote.
(14) Cut off would likely be the day before the vote.
(15) I am highly against a one year period. Three might be too long, but one is too short.
(16) See previous discussion on temp-banned.
(17) We settled on 9-11 for now, but the number will likely change as the community size changes.
(18) Same as with the Board, probably day before.
(19) Good point on a % rather than an outright number, we'll have to think through that.
(20) I'm not sure what you're referring to about forum drama.
(21) All moderator positions can be put to a vote at the same time, each one is just an up/down ratification. If there are 5 vacancies, the Board can put up 5 nominees.
(22) Good point about the BoD voting on their own removal. We'll have to think about that.
(23) EOs are not involved in community management, they're responsible for the organization. Since the community only has say via the Board of Directors on who is an EO, it doesn't make sense for the community to have direct say on their removal.
(24) Moderator removal threshold is the same as Board, supermajority, so they're not different.
(25) Fair point on the Mod removal, we'll have to think about it.
e: God damn it MI and I did it again.
On KD04-B, Step 5 (#20 on the list), we have an explicit statement that the discussions between the mods and users is not confidential. I just would like a reminder here that this doesn't equate to allowing for a public airing of grievances.
I thought KD04-B.5 was talking about communications between the board and prospective mods as to why they were not being considered for the position. I don't see anything about communications between users and mods.
Would you say I had a plethora of pinatas?
Legos are cool, MOCs are cool, check me out on Rebrickable!
I appreciate that the board will be voted on before mods are selected. Does this mean we will have board elections prior to CoRe going live? If yes, what is the timeline?
Where you state:
The overall plan is to ratify ALL of the mission critical KDs at once into our Bylaws in a single ratification once we've gotten feedback on all of them and they're all in a place where we're confident that the community is satisfied with them. There are 7 KDs we consider MVPs.
seems at odds with:
...so please treat this as your final chance to say yes or no to these Key Decisions.
I know that's not the intention, so just pointing it out.
KD06
5 elected board members (Directors). DEIA is appointed by Directors. President is appointed by Directors and DEIA. But DEIA is a Director position, so could just say Directors. DEIA and President are noted as having a vote, other positions do not. Is it intentional that they don't have a vote?
How big will the team be? (Seems to be 11 after reading KD04) Are the EOs limited to board members only? Will it be 5 elected members, 5 elected, 2 appointed, with 4 of 5 directors as EOs, or 11 members in total (5 board, DEIA, 5 executives)? If 11 and all have voting rights, then we will have an unelected majority.
KD01
KD01-A - I would move Good Standing to KD06, and reference KD06 for the definitions. Only defining Member but not Moderator or Director feels odd.
KD01-B - How will ties be handled? How will number of average daily active members be determined? Will this number be visible to all members? Is it the previous 30 days from the start of the vote or the completion?
KD01-C - It is unclear which of these activities would fall under the scope of the Board vote only and which fall under general member voting.
Which category do the KD documents fall under? Threshold type "Single Transferable Vote" is not defined. Can a director's vote be delegated to another? If yes, must the other person be a director also, or could a member/moderator act as a delegate?
Removal of Moderator should have the same thresholds as Removal from the Board (Supermajority except in case of misconduct).
Threshold notes for self:
Board thresholds - Members / Majority / Supermajority / Tie Possible
5 - 3 - 3 - No
6 - 3 - 4 - Yes
7 - 4 - 5 - No
8 - 4 - 6 - Yes
9 - 5 - 6 - No
10 - 5 - 7 - Yes
11 - 6 - 8 - No
KD04 KD04-A
How is a position recognized as vacant? I ask because frequently people just stop posting and we never find out what happened.
Steps (1) and (2): Is there a cutoff date prior to the election for nominations?
Step (3)(a) - I think three years is too long of a period and suggest a maximum of one year.
Step (3)(b) - I would add a restriction that the user has not been temp banned over the same time period as (3)(a). Otherwise, I think we could skip (3)(b) entirely as currently good standing is defined as "not banned".
KD04-B
Current Moderator List from PAF for my reference, ~9 active mods:
I am not a fan of limiting the number of moderators at 9 to 11, as I would prefer the number to grow or shrink depending on the growth or shrink of our community. This also requires sufficient quality of candidates to apply, else this could lead to questionable staffing decisions in order to meet a quota.
Steps (1) and (2): Is there a cutoff date prior to the election for nominations?
Step (4)(f) I suggest changing this to a percentage instead (e.g. 25%, round up).
Step (5) Add a reminder that the normal rules about forum drama apply.
Step (6) Why one candidate? If we have to select 11 mods through this process we'll still be at it this time next year.
KD04-C
For Board of Director Initiated member removal, please state that the person under consideration is not allowed to vote. Otherwise that one vote puts them a significant way towards being able to block a supermajority. At 7 voting members, it is the difference between having a majority and supermajority.
Why can EOs only be removed by the board, and not by community vote?
KD04-D
I think that the threshold for mod removal by the board for violations should be Majority only (as with the board). I think the voting limit on moderator proposed mod removal should be Majority since it will also have to be voted on by the board.
Going through your questions:
(1) The Board of Directors is 7 members. Directors, who are elected, a DEIA Director, and a President. This is in KD6.
(2) The Board of Directors does not include EOs, and Directors and EOs do not overlap. This is in KD04-A.
(3) KD01-A was left there for people to easily reference the definitions, but we'll put Good Standing in KD6 as well.
(4) There won't be ties via the thresholds laid out?
(5) Average daily active members is determined on the back-end. If a person is active (i.e. logged in) on a certain day, they count towards that day. The average of those days' counts over 30 days is the number.
(6) Don't know if the number needs to be visible all the time, but it seems reasonable to include it as part of the poll that quorum = X.
(7) The KD1-C thresholds are just thresholds, the process for the changes are in KD04.
(8) Key decisions aren't listed, but that's something we'll discuss.
(9) STV is in KD4.
(10) A director's vote cannot be delegated to another.
(11) The thresholds for removing Moderators and Board Members is the same.
(12) We haven't written misconduct yet, but I would say a Board Member that has stopped participating can be removed for misconduct. Moderators are checked in with periodically and if they stop participating they can also be removed.
(13) Missed this earlier, but 30 days from the start of the vote.
(14) Cut off would likely be the day before the vote.
(15) I am highly against a one year period. Three might be too long, but one is too short.
(16) See previous discussion on temp-banned.
(17) We settled on 9-11 for now, but the number will likely change as the community size changes.
(18) Same as with the Board, probably day before.
(19) Good point on a % rather than an outright number, we'll have to think through that.
(20) I'm not sure what you're referring to about forum drama.
(21) All moderator positions can be put to a vote at the same time, each one is just an up/down ratification. If there are 5 vacancies, the Board can put up 5 nominees.
(22) Good point about the BoD voting on their own removal. We'll have to think about that.
(23) EOs are not involved in community management, they're responsible for the organization. Since the community only has say via the Board of Directors on who is an EO, it doesn't make sense for the community to have direct say on their removal.
(24) Moderator removal threshold is the same as Board, supermajority, so they're not different.
(25) Fair point on the Mod removal, we'll have to think about it.
e: God damn it MI and I did it again.
On KD04-B, Step 5 (#20 on the list), we have an explicit statement that the discussions between the mods and users is not confidential. I just would like a reminder here that this doesn't equate to allowing for a public airing of grievances.
I thought KD04-B.5 was talking about communications between the board and prospective mods as to why they were not being considered for the position. I don't see anything about communications between users and mods.
Candidates will be informed privately if their EOIs are declined by the Board of Directors, with an explanation as to why. Candidates are not required to keep this information confidential.
My concern is that someone takes the bolded as permission to air grievances. I meant to say board and not mods above, thanks for catching that.
0
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered User, Moderatormod
I appreciate that the board will be voted on before mods are selected. Does this mean we will have board elections prior to CoRe going live? If yes, what is the timeline?
Where you state:
The overall plan is to ratify ALL of the mission critical KDs at once into our Bylaws in a single ratification once we've gotten feedback on all of them and they're all in a place where we're confident that the community is satisfied with them. There are 7 KDs we consider MVPs.
seems at odds with:
...so please treat this as your final chance to say yes or no to these Key Decisions.
I know that's not the intention, so just pointing it out.
KD06
5 elected board members (Directors). DEIA is appointed by Directors. President is appointed by Directors and DEIA. But DEIA is a Director position, so could just say Directors. DEIA and President are noted as having a vote, other positions do not. Is it intentional that they don't have a vote?
How big will the team be? (Seems to be 11 after reading KD04) Are the EOs limited to board members only? Will it be 5 elected members, 5 elected, 2 appointed, with 4 of 5 directors as EOs, or 11 members in total (5 board, DEIA, 5 executives)? If 11 and all have voting rights, then we will have an unelected majority.
KD01
KD01-A - I would move Good Standing to KD06, and reference KD06 for the definitions. Only defining Member but not Moderator or Director feels odd.
KD01-B - How will ties be handled? How will number of average daily active members be determined? Will this number be visible to all members? Is it the previous 30 days from the start of the vote or the completion?
KD01-C - It is unclear which of these activities would fall under the scope of the Board vote only and which fall under general member voting.
Which category do the KD documents fall under? Threshold type "Single Transferable Vote" is not defined. Can a director's vote be delegated to another? If yes, must the other person be a director also, or could a member/moderator act as a delegate?
Removal of Moderator should have the same thresholds as Removal from the Board (Supermajority except in case of misconduct).
Threshold notes for self:
Board thresholds - Members / Majority / Supermajority / Tie Possible
5 - 3 - 3 - No
6 - 3 - 4 - Yes
7 - 4 - 5 - No
8 - 4 - 6 - Yes
9 - 5 - 6 - No
10 - 5 - 7 - Yes
11 - 6 - 8 - No
KD04 KD04-A
How is a position recognized as vacant? I ask because frequently people just stop posting and we never find out what happened.
Steps (1) and (2): Is there a cutoff date prior to the election for nominations?
Step (3)(a) - I think three years is too long of a period and suggest a maximum of one year.
Step (3)(b) - I would add a restriction that the user has not been temp banned over the same time period as (3)(a). Otherwise, I think we could skip (3)(b) entirely as currently good standing is defined as "not banned".
KD04-B
Current Moderator List from PAF for my reference, ~9 active mods:
I am not a fan of limiting the number of moderators at 9 to 11, as I would prefer the number to grow or shrink depending on the growth or shrink of our community. This also requires sufficient quality of candidates to apply, else this could lead to questionable staffing decisions in order to meet a quota.
Steps (1) and (2): Is there a cutoff date prior to the election for nominations?
Step (4)(f) I suggest changing this to a percentage instead (e.g. 25%, round up).
Step (5) Add a reminder that the normal rules about forum drama apply.
Step (6) Why one candidate? If we have to select 11 mods through this process we'll still be at it this time next year.
KD04-C
For Board of Director Initiated member removal, please state that the person under consideration is not allowed to vote. Otherwise that one vote puts them a significant way towards being able to block a supermajority. At 7 voting members, it is the difference between having a majority and supermajority.
Why can EOs only be removed by the board, and not by community vote?
KD04-D
I think that the threshold for mod removal by the board for violations should be Majority only (as with the board). I think the voting limit on moderator proposed mod removal should be Majority since it will also have to be voted on by the board.
Going through your questions:
(1) The Board of Directors is 7 members. Directors, who are elected, a DEIA Director, and a President. This is in KD6.
(2) The Board of Directors does not include EOs, and Directors and EOs do not overlap. This is in KD04-A.
(3) KD01-A was left there for people to easily reference the definitions, but we'll put Good Standing in KD6 as well.
(4) There won't be ties via the thresholds laid out?
(5) Average daily active members is determined on the back-end. If a person is active (i.e. logged in) on a certain day, they count towards that day. The average of those days' counts over 30 days is the number.
(6) Don't know if the number needs to be visible all the time, but it seems reasonable to include it as part of the poll that quorum = X.
(7) The KD1-C thresholds are just thresholds, the process for the changes are in KD04.
(8) Key decisions aren't listed, but that's something we'll discuss.
(9) STV is in KD4.
(10) A director's vote cannot be delegated to another.
(11) The thresholds for removing Moderators and Board Members is the same.
(12) We haven't written misconduct yet, but I would say a Board Member that has stopped participating can be removed for misconduct. Moderators are checked in with periodically and if they stop participating they can also be removed.
(13) Missed this earlier, but 30 days from the start of the vote.
(14) Cut off would likely be the day before the vote.
(15) I am highly against a one year period. Three might be too long, but one is too short.
(16) See previous discussion on temp-banned.
(17) We settled on 9-11 for now, but the number will likely change as the community size changes.
(18) Same as with the Board, probably day before.
(19) Good point on a % rather than an outright number, we'll have to think through that.
(20) I'm not sure what you're referring to about forum drama.
(21) All moderator positions can be put to a vote at the same time, each one is just an up/down ratification. If there are 5 vacancies, the Board can put up 5 nominees.
(22) Good point about the BoD voting on their own removal. We'll have to think about that.
(23) EOs are not involved in community management, they're responsible for the organization. Since the community only has say via the Board of Directors on who is an EO, it doesn't make sense for the community to have direct say on their removal.
(24) Moderator removal threshold is the same as Board, supermajority, so they're not different.
(25) Fair point on the Mod removal, we'll have to think about it.
e: God damn it MI and I did it again.
On KD04-B, Step 5 (#20 on the list), we have an explicit statement that the discussions between the mods and users is not confidential. I just would like a reminder here that this doesn't equate to allowing for a public airing of grievances.
I thought KD04-B.5 was talking about communications between the board and prospective mods as to why they were not being considered for the position. I don't see anything about communications between users and mods.
Candidates will be informed privately if their EOIs are declined by the Board of Directors, with an explanation as to why. Candidates are not required to keep this information confidential.
My concern is that someone takes the bolded as permission to air grievances. I meant to say board and not mods above, thanks for catching that.
i don't think we need to separately codify anything
you're allowed to let people know you were or weren't chosen
you aren't allowed to break any rules or violate the code of conduct when doing so
Allegedly a voice of reason.
+3
ToxI kill threadsDilige, et quod vis facRegistered Userregular
So if the grievance is bad enough it would fall under KD04-C: Process for Community Removal of Governance Position Member
That said - is there a KD that provides for a process to appeal a Board decision? Like to say "this grievance does not constitute misconduct but the community would like to challenge this one decision, formally"
Maybe something like Mod Selection should not be appealable, but some sort of process of Appeal should exist for some Board decisions (and apologies if I missed it).
maybe the real panopticon was the friends we made along the way
So if the grievance is bad enough it would fall under KD04-C: Process for Community Removal of Governance Position Member
That said - is there a KD that provides for a process to appeal a Board decision? Like to say "this grievance does not constitute misconduct but the community would like to challenge this one decision, formally"
Maybe something like Mod Selection should not be appealable, but some sort of process of Appeal should exist for some Board decisions (and apologies if I missed it).
Yeah we’d actually scoped this out to be its own KD, KD03 issue resolution process. It’ll be part of the next rounds of consultation for sure
As a disabled person of the forum, I'd like it if someone with a disability could also be in consideration for the Diversity, Equity, Inclusion & Accessibility Director?
I don't disagree with this idea, but I will say I don't envy the task of trying to write the definition of disability. In the strictest sense, needing glasses to see is a disability for example. It is a very huge category so decisions need to be made around how broadly you want to set the definition there.
Is there going to be a relaxation of the new member / member restrictions for a while at launch? We're all going to be "new" on the forums.
I would download a car.
0
FishmanPut your goddamned hand in the goddamned Box of Pain.Registered Userregular
edited February 23
Thoughts:
1. There is no mechanism to change governance processes, procedures, or positions.
KD01-C lacks a way to update any of the governance decisions covered in the KD proposals after the fact.*
e.g.: if we wanted to change the number of mods from 9-11 to 8-12, there's no actual governance decision method for doing so.
Personally, I would add this to the table in KD01-C as a voting Supermajority threshold.
*: Unless the KD proposal governance is a form of 'Forum Rule'. However, given that the 'Forum Rules' was organised by a separate team, is reviewed in a separate thread, and has a separate voting acceptance/ratification before the community, that suggests that forum governance KDs are a distinct set of items that are not Forum Rules.
2. No process or procedure for establish new governance processes, procedures, or positions
Related to point 1., above, there's no mechanism to add new governance processes, procedures, or positions.
Also no mechanism to remove defunct processes, procedures, or positions.
3. What the fuck is a bylaw?
KD01-F makes reference to 'bylaws'.
While it can probably be presumed the 'bylaws' in question are basically the catchall phrase to refer to the set of proposals captured in the KD documents (which I referred to as "governance processes, procedures, or positions" above), this isn't actually defined anywhere.
So KD01-f (4), in conjunction with my points 1. and 2. above, translates as:
"The Board of Directors may submit something that doesn't exist to the community for ratification via the thresholds that are not captured or defined anywhere."
It would be great to add a definition to establish that the bylaws are the set of governance processes and procedures established & defined into the KD governance proposals (or rather the inverse: that the KD are proposals for the bylaws governing Coin Return non-profit society).
4. Governance of Forum Rules
KD01-C has entries for 'Addition of Forum rules' and 'Removal of Forum rules', but no listing for 'Alteration of Forum rules', which seems reasonably likely.
Given that the thresholds for each of these is likely to be the same, I suggest consolidating the Forum rules governance decisions in KD01-C into a single entry, 'Addition, Alteration, or Deletion of Forum rules'.
5. Position Vacancy
Could an outgoing (stepping down) DEIA Director or President be involved in nominating/voting for their successor?
As written, KD04-A suggests the position needs to be currently vacant (as opposed to will be vacant) at the time of nomination, which would exclude the outgoing holder of the position from having a say in their successor.
I can see benefit, particularly for the DEIA role, in the outgoing holder of the position being involved in the selection process for their successor.
6. Board Candidacy Eligibility
KD04-A 3(a) lists a 3 year period for eligibility criteria for Board candidacy.
Is this intentionally intended to match the length of board member term limit set in KD04-e, so that a person must have been a member for at least 1 board member cycle before becoming a member of the board? Or is it independently and coincidentally also just set as 3 years?
If the two periods are intended to be linked, I would prefer a definition of 'term period' to be added and that language to be used, so as to make the link explicit.
7. Member qualification
The definition of member is someone 'who has made 20 posts or had an active account for 30 days' (the specific details/values for which are also an ongoing discussion point in this thread).
For the purposes of determining qualification, does Reacting count as 'posting'?
If not, should a reaction count also be added as another way to qualify as being a Member, rather than a New Member?
Posts
This may be a moot point with the new rules and such, if points-based temp bans are out. I assume the board/mod review of candidates for moderators will already down-select people with extensive moderation histories so I’m not concerned as much there.
So I definitely understand this. What is the difference between someone who is lurking for 6 months or whatever versus someone who made 5/10/20/100 non-sense posts in a random joke thread 6 months ago and has done nothing since? You can't force engagement. People will do the minimum they have to and then have a bitter taste in their mouth towards posting because it was a forced interaction rather than organic.
The issue here is it would be incredibly obvious there's a massive, anomolous influx of new, non-spam accounts and would, I would hope, be something the people in charge would keep an eye on.
Also if they managed this invasive brigade in the first place, it'd be trivial to have them throw a few posts here and there to breech whatever threshold we set up to separate them from the categories of "suspicious lurkers" and "upstanding members." Especially in the day and age of AI generation, they wouldn't even have to put much effort into it to pass the bare minimum.
Any breaches of the rules will result in temp thread kicks, with escalation if it continues after the kick expires.
like starting at a higher baseline timeframe to full membership that can be reduced by posting activity down to some set floor? example 2 month baseline + 30 posts = 1 month to full member?
One topic we've discussed but not directly captured in the documents here is to handle members who have, to borrow your phrasing, "extensive moderation histories." If somebody has a pattern of minor conduct issues but never quite crosses the line into a permaban, that's something we need to address. It's still an open discussion how we address it, particularly in situations where the individual is generally acting in good faith but might just need an attitude adjustment. (It's also something that's not exactly governance, though it does overlap, so I don't necessarily expect we'll capture it in governance documents.)
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I'm not sure about this.
On the one hand, I agree that someone who just came off a temp-ban probably does not have the temperament to be a good mod.
On the other hand, what if the temp ban was made for spurious reasons?
On the third, auxiliary back-up hand, if the ban was spurious, it probably would've been overturned on appeal, and so wouldn't count.
I think if you tried to implement this as a rule, you'd have to put a bunch of thought into what counts as a "temp-ban" - does a 24 hour timeout count? And so on. Ultimately, it's probably easier to just trust that the existing mods and board can weigh this stuff on their own without having to spell it out in a rule. Someone who got temp-banned is probably not going to make it through the whole mod selection process, whether or not there's an explicit rule barring him.
Legos are cool, MOCs are cool, check me out on Rebrickable!
So the rules do have a solution that maybe is helpful and will be more on display today. Repeatedly pushing the line, and trying to game the moderation system the way others have in the past is called out explicitly. Mods will, if the proposal goes through, be empowered to deal with those who want to dance on the edge of the line for fun. Further discussion probably best saved for the rules discussion when it happens, but figured I would flag it here since it is relevant.
I think - and this applied to this whole endeavor in general, not just your suggestion - that there is value in keeping things as simple as we can get away with. Over-engineering can be a problem, especially when it's in service of something that probably comes down to edge cases. I don't feel we gain a lot from developing a formula to determine when you get to be a full member versus just having a simple rule, and I say this as someone who loves formulas.
Legos are cool, MOCs are cool, check me out on Rebrickable!
For counting a temp-ban, I would just use whatever definition the KD is using for the temp-ban line (that requires a majority of mod buy-in and can be appealed).
Also, not so much worried about this hypothetical person becoming a mod, due to having to pass board and mod review before even getting to the ratification vote. My main ask was more about board members. If someone is getting temp-banned on points, should that person be allowed to run for a board seat, especially if that comes with access to PII?
Edit:
Makes sense. Hard needle to thread, honestly haven’t seen many places on the internet that have found a good way to deal with that type of user.
Don't forget the fourth hand, some folks were younger and dumber and the person they are today might be very different from the person they were 5, 10, 15, 20+ years ago. You don't necessarily want to always push down folks who were awful teenagers but are better now in their adult lives, even if their early adult lives weren't as good as they are today even.
Oh I don’t mean to disqualify anyone forever, more of a cooldown from the return-from-ban, similar to how people are usually on thinner ice for a bit afterwards. Like 3-6 months?
I appreciate that the board will be voted on before mods are selected. Does this mean we will have board elections prior to CoRe going live? If yes, what is the timeline?
Where you state:
seems at odds with:
I know that's not the intention, so just pointing it out.
KD06
5 elected board members (Directors). DEIA is appointed by Directors. President is appointed by Directors and DEIA. But DEIA is a Director position, so could just say Directors. DEIA and President are noted as having a vote, other positions do not. Is it intentional that they don't have a vote?
How big will the team be? (Seems to be 11 after reading KD04) Are the EOs limited to board members only? Will it be 5 elected members, 5 elected, 2 appointed, with 4 of 5 directors as EOs, or 11 members in total (5 board, DEIA, 5 executives)? If 11 and all have voting rights, then we will have an unelected majority.
KD01
KD01-A - I would move Good Standing to KD06, and reference KD06 for the definitions. Only defining Member but not Moderator or Director feels odd.
KD01-B - How will ties be handled? How will number of average daily active members be determined? Will this number be visible to all members? Is it the previous 30 days from the start of the vote or the completion?
KD01-C - It is unclear which of these activities would fall under the scope of the Board vote only and which fall under general member voting.
Which category do the KD documents fall under? Threshold type "Single Transferable Vote" is not defined. Can a director's vote be delegated to another? If yes, must the other person be a director also, or could a member/moderator act as a delegate?
Removal of Moderator should have the same thresholds as Removal from the Board (Supermajority except in case of misconduct).
Threshold notes for self:
5 - 3 - 3 - No
6 - 3 - 4 - Yes
7 - 4 - 5 - No
8 - 4 - 6 - Yes
9 - 5 - 6 - No
10 - 5 - 7 - Yes
11 - 6 - 8 - No
KD04
KD04-A
How is a position recognized as vacant? I ask because frequently people just stop posting and we never find out what happened.
Steps (1) and (2): Is there a cutoff date prior to the election for nominations?
Step (3)(a) - I think three years is too long of a period and suggest a maximum of one year.
Step (3)(b) - I would add a restriction that the user has not been temp banned over the same time period as (3)(a). Otherwise, I think we could skip (3)(b) entirely as currently good standing is defined as "not banned".
KD04-B
Current Moderator List from PAF for my reference, ~9 active mods:
I am not a fan of limiting the number of moderators at 9 to 11, as I would prefer the number to grow or shrink depending on the growth or shrink of our community. This also requires sufficient quality of candidates to apply, else this could lead to questionable staffing decisions in order to meet a quota.
Steps (1) and (2): Is there a cutoff date prior to the election for nominations?
Step (4)(f) I suggest changing this to a percentage instead (e.g. 25%, round up).
Step (5) Add a reminder that the normal rules about forum drama apply.
Step (6) Why one candidate? If we have to select 11 mods through this process we'll still be at it this time next year.
KD04-C
For Board of Director Initiated member removal, please state that the person under consideration is not allowed to vote. Otherwise that one vote puts them a significant way towards being able to block a supermajority. At 7 voting members, it is the difference between having a majority and supermajority.
Why can EOs only be removed by the board, and not by community vote?
KD04-D
I think that the threshold for mod removal by the board for violations should be Majority only (as with the board). I think the voting limit on moderator proposed mod removal should be Majority since it will also have to be voted on by the board.
The idea is to have that election before going live at CoRe, and we're hoping to juuuust make it. Worst case, if there's a delay, the plan will be to move over with the interim board and existing PA mods who are willing to continue temporarily, and then have the election as soon as possible after the move.
As for the ratification, yeah, the intent with that was that this was essentially the final open session for community comment and feedback (unless it had gone VERY badly), and that the next time will be a presentation of these KD's (with any necessary feedback incorporated) along with the other mission critical KDs that are still to come, up for a simple yea/nay ratification vote. So that'll still be a chance for people to voice their dissent, but we're hoping all the real actionable feedback gets out right here in this session -- which has been going very well so far.
All 7 Directors have a vote -- unless I'm missing what you're pointing out, the bullet point of "Votes on Board of Directors actions" is included on both the "Directors" (which references the 5 elected Directors), as well as the DEIA Director, and the President. Executive Officers do not get a vote on the Board of Directors actions (aside from the President, who serves on both sides as a Director and a member of the EO team). So the total potential number of votes on all Board actions is 7 -- 5 from the elected Directors, and 2 from the appointed DEIA Director and President.
Executive Officers can be anyone the board selects for the positions, and they need not be board members (and in most cases, ideally, they wouldn't be, to help spread out the weight of duties better). In most companies I have experience with, the Executive Officers don't change very often unless one decides to step down or the board finds that they're guilty of some type of malfeasance. In theory, as long as the EOs are doing their jobs well, it keeps things running much smoother on the Corporate side if the people handling the bank accounts and meeting minutes and tax documents and such aren't shuffled in and out every year or two.
The EOs are generally focused on a specific task and aren't responsible for other general forum governance outside of their focus. The Treasurer is just there to handle the money and bank accounts. The Secretary is just there to handle meeting minutes and keep our corporate document library. The Technical Admin is just there to handle the technical side of the forum maintenance and development. None of them have any role in determining policy or making decisions for the company or the forums outside of their role. The exception is the President, who is tasked by the board to carry out their directives as the hands-on party, and to be the responsible person for the forums in terms of ensuring we follow applicable laws, and handling situations where we may need a representative to interact with other companies or entities. Due to the nature of the large number of responsibilities on that role, they also get a board seat to be allowed a vote in the direction along with the rest of the Board, but at the end of the day they answer to the Board as a whole in all regards.
Technically a tie would be a vote that missed a majority by 1 vote, and thus would fail to pass (Majority being 50%+1 vote).
Reports can be generated on demand to give us daily active members, and would be based on the preceding 30 day average at the time a vote begins. It's not accessible directly by regular users, but would be declared at the start of a vote.
All the decisions in this table refer to community-wide votes that are put forth by the Board.
Not sure what you mean by the first part.
Single Transferable Vote is a type of ranked choice voting, and is further defined in KD04-A
We discussed, at one point, the ability for Board members to delegate their vote to a proxy, but I don't believe anything came of it. Open to compelling arguments for the need, however I think the general feeling was that the ability to simply abstain was enough.
They're both Supermajority, unless I'm missing something (entirely possible, having read through this thing a hundred times, tbh). Or are you just saying that there should be a carveout to lower the threshold to Majority in cases of alleged misconduct?
A board member stepping down, or being removed by the rest of the board. If a Board member has been out of communication for an unusual amount of time, it would be up to the rest of the board to use their best judgment to call for and vote on their removal.
We felt that the range allowed for some flexibility -- we don't need to fill 11 seats if we only have 10 good candidates. The range as a whole was determined based on current mod staffing levels and several discussions with those mods. As it stands now, we likely have about 6 actual active mods, and it is clear that we could use better coverage. This number can always be adjusted through the proper methods later if it proves excessive or insufficient.
I think this is just phrasing. If more than one mod appointment fails ratification, new options would be presented all at once, not one at a time. So if 4 mods are presented and 2 do not pass ratification, 2 new options would then be presented together for the next round of ratification votes.
Good point, and I thought that was in there. Will discuss.
Simply put -- the community will have very little to do with these Officers in the course of their duties, and even less insight into how well or poorly they're doing their job. And since these are more along the lines of task-specific job appointments, it makes more sense to only allow the body responsible for appointing them and overseeing them to have a hand in their removal if needed.
Unlike moderators, for example, who necessarily interact with the community on a daily basis, and whose actions are far more visible and transparent to that community.
Hope that makes sense!
Going through your questions:
(1) The Board of Directors is 7 members. Directors, who are elected, a DEIA Director, and a President. This is in KD6.
(2) The Board of Directors does not include EOs, and Directors and EOs do not overlap. This is in KD04-A.
(3) KD01-A was left there for people to easily reference the definitions, but we'll put Good Standing in KD6 as well.
(4) There won't be ties via the thresholds laid out?
(5) Average daily active members is determined on the back-end. If a person is active (i.e. logged in) on a certain day, they count towards that day. The average of those days' counts over 30 days is the number.
(6) Don't know if the number needs to be visible all the time, but it seems reasonable to include it as part of the poll that quorum = X.
(7) The KD1-C thresholds are just thresholds, the process for the changes are in KD04.
(8) Key decisions aren't listed, but that's something we'll discuss.
(9) STV is in KD4.
(10) A director's vote cannot be delegated to another.
(11) The thresholds for removing Moderators and Board Members is the same.
(12) We haven't written misconduct yet, but I would say a Board Member that has stopped participating can be removed for misconduct. Moderators are checked in with periodically and if they stop participating they can also be removed.
(13) Missed this earlier, but 30 days from the start of the vote.
(14) Cut off would likely be the day before the vote.
(15) I am highly against a one year period. Three might be too long, but one is too short.
(16) See previous discussion on temp-banned.
(17) We settled on 9-11 for now, but the number will likely change as the community size changes.
(18) Same as with the Board, probably day before.
(19) Good point on a % rather than an outright number, we'll have to think through that.
(20) I'm not sure what you're referring to about forum drama.
(21) All moderator positions can be put to a vote at the same time, each one is just an up/down ratification. If there are 5 vacancies, the Board can put up 5 nominees.
(22) Good point about the BoD voting on their own removal. We'll have to think about that.
(23) EOs are not involved in community management, they're responsible for the organization. Since the community only has say via the Board of Directors on who is an EO, it doesn't make sense for the community to have direct say on their removal.
(24) Moderator removal threshold is the same as Board, supermajority, so they're not different.
(25) Fair point on the Mod removal, we'll have to think about it.
e: God damn it MI and I did it again.
Legos are cool, MOCs are cool, check me out on Rebrickable!
It’s a balancing act, but I see the minimum being simply registering and waiting as more concerning for access to the private boards. At least someone making nonsense posts we can look back and see that they’re posting nonsense.
And like I said, I’m not supporting requiring posting for voting and access to the public boards because I do think lurkers are a part of the community and should have some say in how it is run. I’m just saying some direct engagement would be nice to access the threads where folks will be most likely to talk about their jobs, their families, their politics, and their personal lives. People can still game it, obviously. But like if someone just posts “I’m making this post for access” or 20 “lols” or Lorem ipsums or ai drivel then it could also be easier for mods to ensure that malicious folks aren’t getting to the personal stuff.
Games and media and the other public forums are most likely to be appealing to lurker types anyway.
I'm not sure I'm missing it. We don't see nearly as many as we used to, and I appreciate that this is likely due to said efforts by the moderators doing said work.
But it wasn't rare, and it wasn't that long ago, that I'd sniff 'em out and then watch them get banned for being an alt days or weeks later.
Obviously, having a system that is accessible will require leaving the door open a smidge, and I'm doubtful that anyone is determined enough to do some kind of long running slow burn flood of alt accounts for nefarious means (other than ElJeffe, but that's a known issue).
I don't think we should overengineer things, as I said, it shouldn't require some forum ninja warrior type shenanigans just to come post about ones favourite show, book, or political topic.
It's not even really something that I think has a takeaway or action item. More just 'this is something I've seen, repeatedly, over literal years, and while I hope the processes in the upcoming forum cover most of the bases, now is when we were asked for concerns and feedback, so I'm givin' y'all some feedback. :-D
Hum. I can't say I like it personally, but I also can't argue against it much. This is a very fair point I slightly misunderstood. Thank you for the clarification.
This is reasonable and I’m easily convinced we don’t need to add unnecessary complication. I suppose a lot of the problem is already caught in basic spam/bot filtering anyway and it’s really just giving too much attention to that one jerk carefully seeding alts over years to one day strike us down
for what it's worth, even with the shit tools we have on Vanilla it would take an exceedingly clever and patient person to get away with something like this and it not be completely obvious
Still mauling some stuff over, one area I would like further clarification on though.
In regards to appointment of moderators, am I interpreted that as a full vote of the community? If so that's a deal break for because I don't want moderation to become a popularity contest, where we just get piss poor moderation as a result. I'd think given the community has the ability to remove a mode, should be sufficient for dealing with cases where a moderation does get out of hand. There it isn't a popularity contest, since if somehow has sour grapes about a mod, most of the community will likely vote it down and if a moderator is being a tyrant, probably most of the community will be on board with giving them a the boot.
I do want to talk more about it and maybe pick a different number, but I think we can table that specific discussion for the next ... 2ish months?
Just to be clear - as outlined in another section (I'm on my phone at the moment) mods are appointed by the Board, but just have to be "ratified" by the community when the board presents their choices. This is a simple up/down vote to confirm the Board's choices, and only has to reach 50%+1 to pass. Mods will never be competing for votes for fewer positions than there are candidates.
moderator candidates are selected through self-nomination or nomination by someone else with agreement (the idea currently is this will just be a form where you say you're interested)
the board then chooses enough candidates to fill the available slots
the community only votes to ratify the nominations
How does campaigning work? Can I say 'shit this person has 30 dedicated followers but is unfit for the board'?
Moderator elections seem to have qualifications but board elections seem to be that unless you are presently banned, sure you could be on the board.
The specific details around notifying the community about board applications/the voting list will come later, but as a broad rule I can’t imagine we will be inviting a struggle session for each board candidate.
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better
bit.ly/2XQM1ke
On KD04-B, Step 5 (#20 on the list), we have an explicit statement that the discussions between the mods board and users is not confidential. I just would like a reminder here that this doesn't equate to allowing for a public airing of grievances.
This would be separate from 4.f requirements.
I thought KD04-B.5 was talking about communications between the board and prospective mods as to why they were not being considered for the position. I don't see anything about communications between users and mods.
Legos are cool, MOCs are cool, check me out on Rebrickable!
My concern is that someone takes the bolded as permission to air grievances. I meant to say board and not mods above, thanks for catching that.
i don't think we need to separately codify anything
you're allowed to let people know you were or weren't chosen
you aren't allowed to break any rules or violate the code of conduct when doing so
That said - is there a KD that provides for a process to appeal a Board decision? Like to say "this grievance does not constitute misconduct but the community would like to challenge this one decision, formally"
Maybe something like Mod Selection should not be appealable, but some sort of process of Appeal should exist for some Board decisions (and apologies if I missed it).
Yeah we’d actually scoped this out to be its own KD, KD03 issue resolution process. It’ll be part of the next rounds of consultation for sure
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better
bit.ly/2XQM1ke
I don't disagree with this idea, but I will say I don't envy the task of trying to write the definition of disability. In the strictest sense, needing glasses to see is a disability for example. It is a very huge category so decisions need to be made around how broadly you want to set the definition there.
1. There is no mechanism to change governance processes, procedures, or positions.
KD01-C lacks a way to update any of the governance decisions covered in the KD proposals after the fact.*
e.g.: if we wanted to change the number of mods from 9-11 to 8-12, there's no actual governance decision method for doing so.
Personally, I would add this to the table in KD01-C as a voting Supermajority threshold.
*: Unless the KD proposal governance is a form of 'Forum Rule'. However, given that the 'Forum Rules' was organised by a separate team, is reviewed in a separate thread, and has a separate voting acceptance/ratification before the community, that suggests that forum governance KDs are a distinct set of items that are not Forum Rules.
2. No process or procedure for establish new governance processes, procedures, or positions
Related to point 1., above, there's no mechanism to add new governance processes, procedures, or positions.
Also no mechanism to remove defunct processes, procedures, or positions.
3. What the fuck is a bylaw?
KD01-F makes reference to 'bylaws'.
While it can probably be presumed the 'bylaws' in question are basically the catchall phrase to refer to the set of proposals captured in the KD documents (which I referred to as "governance processes, procedures, or positions" above), this isn't actually defined anywhere.
So KD01-f (4), in conjunction with my points 1. and 2. above, translates as:
"The Board of Directors may submit something that doesn't exist to the community for ratification via the thresholds that are not captured or defined anywhere."
It would be great to add a definition to establish that the bylaws are the set of governance processes and procedures established & defined into the KD governance proposals (or rather the inverse: that the KD are proposals for the bylaws governing Coin Return non-profit society).
4. Governance of Forum Rules
KD01-C has entries for 'Addition of Forum rules' and 'Removal of Forum rules', but no listing for 'Alteration of Forum rules', which seems reasonably likely.
Given that the thresholds for each of these is likely to be the same, I suggest consolidating the Forum rules governance decisions in KD01-C into a single entry, 'Addition, Alteration, or Deletion of Forum rules'.
5. Position Vacancy
Could an outgoing (stepping down) DEIA Director or President be involved in nominating/voting for their successor?
As written, KD04-A suggests the position needs to be currently vacant (as opposed to will be vacant) at the time of nomination, which would exclude the outgoing holder of the position from having a say in their successor.
I can see benefit, particularly for the DEIA role, in the outgoing holder of the position being involved in the selection process for their successor.
6. Board Candidacy Eligibility
KD04-A 3(a) lists a 3 year period for eligibility criteria for Board candidacy.
Is this intentionally intended to match the length of board member term limit set in KD04-e, so that a person must have been a member for at least 1 board member cycle before becoming a member of the board? Or is it independently and coincidentally also just set as 3 years?
If the two periods are intended to be linked, I would prefer a definition of 'term period' to be added and that language to be used, so as to make the link explicit.
7. Member qualification
The definition of member is someone 'who has made 20 posts or had an active account for 30 days' (the specific details/values for which are also an ongoing discussion point in this thread).
For the purposes of determining qualification, does Reacting count as 'posting'?
If not, should a reaction count also be added as another way to qualify as being a Member, rather than a New Member?