655572 - Support newsgroups cancellation policy refers to "moderators"; there is currently only one

Status: VERIFIED FIXED

(mozilla.org :: Governance, task)

Description

[jay garcia]

Re: news.mozilla.org
See: http://www.mozilla.org/about/forums/cancellation.html

In the beginning, a moderator panel of three people was set up to oversee the support groups, analyze infractions of the cancellation policy and deal with it accordingly after first discussion the issue(s), etc.

The cancellation policy, as written, refers to "they",ie., the moderator panel. For the last several months this panel has been reduced to only one person as the other two have not been present in the groups. This issue needs to be considered and the panel increased to the original three members, therefore not leaving all of the decisions to just one individual's particular evaluation(s).

When the newly appointed members become active, their identities should be made known to all of the participants in the news groups and/or on the cancellation policy page.

If, by chance, the moderator panel is in fact still made up of three individuals as of this filing then this bug should be marked solved.

I would also like to recommend that any new members of this panel be made up of individuals that have "real names" rather than acronyms, synonyms or "handles", it's just basic courtesy.

Comment 1

[Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.]

Also some of the Panel should be made up of Users as well, and Mozilla developers, or employees

Comment 2

[David E. Ross]

Changed product to from Core.  Changed component from General.  

Since this is having an adverse impact on the operation of support newsgroups -- with no workaround possible -- the importance is changed from Normal to Major.

Comment 3

[Gervase Markham [:gerv]]

I am very open to appointing additional moderators, but they would need to be people who agreed with the current moderation policy, particularly in terms of keeping the groups on-topic.
http://www.mozilla.org/about/forums/cancellation.html

(Appointing new moderators should not be a back-door way of changing the policy. I don't see any new information which would justify a change, but if there is to be a change, this is not the way.)

I have no requirements about pseudonymity - except for legal requirements, the Mozilla project is entirely happy for its contributors to be pseudonymous. That's their choice.

Does anyone on this bug have any suggestions as to who might fit the bill?

> this is having an adverse impact on the operation of support newsgroups

Can you provide data for that?

Gerv

Comment 4

[jay garcia]

1. Not asking for "additional" moderators as such, just bringing staff back up to the original composition of three (or more) members.

2. Not asking or hinting at a change in policy

3. Re: pseudonymity - Off hand I don't recall anyone in any position of authority at Mozilla, administration or otherwise that we only know by a "handle" or "pseudonym". It is basic common courtesy and should be a requirement that anyone appointed or elected to an authoritative postion be known by their real name.

4. Re: suggestion for appointees - I have none at the moment. I will send you a personal email if I come up with some names and I suggest if anyone else has a suggestion(s) they do likewise.

5. Re: Adverse impact - David Ross made the comment and should be the one to respond. However, I, and others, have privately emailed you on occasion outlining adverse impacts that are directly related to this bug, IMHO

Thanks for the reply.

Comment 5

[timeless]

wow, a word i've never needed to use to describe myself.

i'm pretty sure i qualify as pseudononymous.

people have met me, but even then most people address me as 'timeless'.

i've been involved in the project for over a decade, and i do have some amount of authority, although it is limited. there even was a time when i did newsgroup cancelation work (only spam, and certainly not in recent memory).

please note that i'm not asking to be made a member of any such group, i'm just noting that there are a handful of us who are indeed mostly anonymous.

Comment 6

[jay garcia]

A "pseudonym" is acceptable as long as a real name goes along with it, especially when you're being adjudicated. Like I said, common courtesy but we can argue this forever and that is only a minor point in this bug.

Comment 7

[Benjamin Smedberg]

I counter-propose a change in policy so that a single moderator is given ownership of moderation decisions, and can appoint peers as necessary. This is how the rest of our decision-making process works, and is much more effective than decisions by groups of people.

Comment 8

[jay garcia]

When only one person enforces policy you only get that one person's view. When you have at least three people you have possibly different viewpoints and a quorum where it takes not less than two votes to effect a decision. The cancellation policy, as written, is not cut and dry enough for a one-person decision.

Comment 9

[Terry R.]

(In reply to comment #7)
> I counter-propose a change in policy so that a single moderator is given
> ownership of moderation decisions, and can appoint peers as necessary. This
> is how the rest of our decision-making process works, and is much more
> effective than decisions by groups of people.

In this matter, I couldn't disagree more.  The lone moderator has shown too many times that what would considered by most, not to be off-topic or a personal attack, and removed the post(s).  There is absolutely no consistency in his actions.  He is most comfortable removing posts with those of us who have been offering support since the newsgroups at mozilla.org were created.  There are many examples of this weekly in the support groups, so no specific incidents need to be laid out here.

Comment 10

[Gervase Markham [:gerv]]

I should start by saying that it's great that people take time to help others in the support newsgroups. The moderation policy is not a secret plan to get rid of anyone.

Terry's example shows, to my mind, why having a single decision maker is a good idea. If there were a group of 3, it is possible that those arguments would simply move to being between members of the moderation panel - which would be very tiring for the moderators, and make people less likely to want to moderate. And if 3 agree, why not have just one? (Perhaps for coverage and to prevent that person burning out, but the 1 could just appoint peers, as bsmedberg said.)

As I said above, if people don't like the moderation policy, changing it by the back door by adding more moderators with different views is not the right way to do it.

I would note in this connection that almost no other newsgroup at Mozilla requires moderators to perform the role required in the support groups, for the simple reason that people stay on topic in them.

bsmedberg is right that in most other areas of the project, we have a single decision maker who recruits help as necessary. One fix to this bug could be to move to that system.

Gerv

Comment 11

[Terry R.]

If Mozilla.org does not mind having the inconsistency continue in the moderation, fine.  IMO it will only cause less interest to offer support when one has no idea whether their post will even remain.  I can see strict enforcement of the personal attack rule, but off-topic is hard to weigh, varies in view, and should not be the same infraction as a personal attack.  And if one post is removed for being OT, the every OT post should be removed.  The moderator has clearly stated that it does not matter if any support givers leave simply because of occasional OT comments, which reduces the volunteers value to zero.

Comment 12

[jay garcia]

[quote]As I said above, if people don't like the moderation policy, changing it by the back door by adding more moderators with different views is not the right way to do it.[/quote]
This is not the case and not why I filed the bug. The original policy as written calls for a group of moderators. There is no longer this "group" and all the bug is about is bringing the staff back up to the original plan.

Also, this bug wasn't intended to get personal with anyone, including the moderator, so lets stay on-point.

If the policy is to change then file a bug on it. If that is the case then a new cancellation policy is to be authored and submitted for comment. Since I moderate several dozen AOL/Compuserve forums I'll be more than happy to make a submission.

Comment 13

[Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.]

(In reply to comment #7)
> I counter-propose a change in policy so that a single moderator is given
> ownership of moderation decisions, and can appoint peers as necessary. This
> is how the rest of our decision-making process works, and is much more
> effective than decisions by groups of people.

That is the problem now. In effect, we have one person calling the shots. And that person is not even handed. People that have just come on, do a minor infraction or regulars That don't post often and try to keep their nose clean, get slammed hard for something minor. Or if the person that post a lot and  the moderator has a personal disliking of, get slammed hard. Yet people that the moderator like get a minor slap on the wrist. 

If your going to enforce a policy  you need to overlook minor stuff for all, or give an email warning - Don't do it again. with reasons laid out). Or come down hard even on your friends.

While we don't need to turn support groups into another form of Twitter or Facebook. We do need a little bit of humanity. As it stands now Many people are afraid to say anything for fear of being banned. I for one have all but quit posting anything or answering anything in Support Groups for fear of being reprimanded. I am a Mac user, and there are few and Far between Mac people on the list. It just to agrrivatting to post or reply to list.

Comment 14

[jay garcia]

Folks ... PLEASE keep this on-topic. If y'all feel the need to discuss merits of a one-person or multi-person staff, etc. then please file another bug to change the policy.

The original intent of this bug is to bring the moderator staff back up to the original number of moderator group participants as clearly stated in the first line of the cancellation policy.

Thanks!

Comment 15

[mike.easter]

I agree with Gervase and Benjamin's opinions that -1- the current operational policy of a single moderator is best and -2- this is the place to say so, not the creation some other inappropriate governance bug report

A single moderator for the support groups is not a bug, it is a feature, designed to make the moderation of the support groups as efficient and painless as possible. Newsgroup moderation using the existing has limited tools, the process should not be made more difficult to accomplish.

The only flaw in the single moderator feature is that there is a webpage which implies that the moderation or message cancellation is to somehow be done by multiple people. 

This alleged bug can be remedied (if necessary) by amending the webpage to indicate that while policies such as those about moderation and cancellation might be derived by a panel or committee or multiple persons, there is no such 'requirement' that the actual technical process of moderation adjudication be accomplished by any other than a single individual under the aegis of such plurality of oversight.

Clearly it has already been recognized that the convenience and efficiency of a single moderator far surpasses some process more complex.

Comment 16

[jay garcia]

I had hoped that the comments for this bug report wouldn't degrade to the depths which it obviously has, unfortunately. And, this is NOT the place to banter off-topic discussion known as spamming the bug. The bug subject is quite clear.

Again, the intent behind filing this bug was to call attention mainly to the first line in the cancallation policy, to wit:

"The support newsgroups are monitored by a small group of technical support community members."

As it stands now, this "group" consists of only one person. If the policy is subject to change then it is appropriate to file a bug with suggestions for re-writing the cancellation policy. If the consensus of opinion in that bug is that there is to be only one person as moderator then so be it.

Comment 17

[jay garcia]

As the bug is written, there are two choices available for action:

1. Leave the policy written as is and re-staff the panel back to the original intent of three members.

2. File another bug, if necessary, to ammend the policy to one moderator and edit the page as necessary.

Comment 18

[Gervase Markham [:gerv]]

I am going to accept bsmedberg's proposal that we should, like the rest of the project, move to a model of a single owner who can recruit peers to help him as appropriate. (I don't think doing this requires another bug.) 

This would mean updating the policy document to better explain the new method of how the cancellation policy (which is still the same policy) is implemented in practice. Proposed new first line:

"The support newsgroups are monitored by the support newsgroup moderator and his assistants (if any)."

We can then continue to use "they" throughout, which can be read as "singular they" if necessary.

Gerv

Comment 19

[jay garcia]

Thank you for a decision - good luck!

Comment 20

[Chris Ilias [:cilias]]

It sounds like no-one has issues with the draft in comment 18, but the page still needs to be edited. Gerv, do you plan on doing that, or do you want me to?

Comment 21

[Gervase Markham [:gerv]]

Sending        cancellation.html
Transmitting file data .
Committed revision 88995.

Gerv