Timeline for Why were the Code of Conduct changes received so negatively, and what can / could have been done to change that?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
20 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 12, 2019 at 23:59 | comment | added | hmakholm left over Monica | They "gathered feedback from moderators" after making it unmistakably clear to those moderators that not agreeing with the changes is a firing offense ... | |
| Oct 12, 2019 at 16:23 | comment | added | Cœur | — Company: "Any feedback on the proposal?" — Mod A: "Well, thank you for the work, just one question..." — Company, ❋disintegrating Mod A❋: "Any other feedback?" — Mods: "Hu?! What have you done?" — Company: "And now it's live. Let's go on Twitter now." — Users: "Has Doomsday Clock been ticking?" | |
| Oct 11, 2019 at 10:54 | comment | added | user351483 | @GeorgeStocker Yes. Transparency and moderator reach are two things to be worked upon. | |
| Oct 11, 2019 at 10:49 | comment | added | George Stocker | @snow To be clear that aren't very many channels to reach all moderators who don't drop in the TL or use the Mod team Q&A (There's email, and if you remember to look that orange diamond that shows up at the topbar). Yes, that can be improved, but given the tools at hand it's currently a cobblers kids have no shoes situation. | |
| Oct 11, 2019 at 10:19 | comment | added | Rand al'Thor | @ChristineH.Richards Well, technically moderators are also members of the community. But I have no interest in playing defence lawyer for SE; I was just sharing a fact which seemed pertinent. The points made above seem valid and I'm not disagreeing with them. | |
| Oct 11, 2019 at 10:00 | comment | added | Christine H. Richards | @Randal'Thor it says from our moderators and members of the community - which members? The moderator chat is accessible only to diamonds and other members didn't have the opportunity to express their suggestions, did they? | |
| Oct 11, 2019 at 9:57 | comment | added | nvoigt | @Luuklag Well, I guess you could call it "good marketing" instead of "lie" to promise one thing and then make sure you don't have to deliver in the fine print. But I'm done mincing words. | |
| Oct 11, 2019 at 9:50 | comment | added | Luuklag | This quote is absolutely deceiving, and I feel strongly about that fact. If you read the entire post the following is stated near the end: "On Monday, October 7, we’ll be sharing a second draft of an update to our Code of Conduct with all moderators for feedback On Thursday, October 10, the update to the Code of Conduct will be announced publicly" No need to guess what is expected here. They share(d) the new CoC for feedback with moderators, and then announced it. Just like they stated. No lies here. | |
| Oct 11, 2019 at 9:48 | comment | added | George Stocker | @J.R. They put several revisions in both the TL and our Teams Q and A; they put together a google doc of both the CoC change and the blog post and let us suggest edits and make comments. They gave us a lot of chances to make our comments known and we did. I even submitted a complete rewrite of the blog post and it was shipped around (and ultimately not used). Whether they used it or not, they definitely at least allowed us to submit changes. | |
| Oct 11, 2019 at 9:45 | comment | added | user351483 | Moderators were included in the CoC amendments, although only the subset who are active in the TL and Moderator Team site. No outreach was done to the wider moderation team. We had no oversight of the FAQ section before that was released. | |
| Oct 11, 2019 at 9:07 | comment | added | Lundin | Well there's barely any moderators left to get feedback from, so no wonder... | |
| Oct 11, 2019 at 8:54 | comment | added | J.R. means 'Just Reinstate' | I am a moderator who rarely enters the TL. To say that "they did gather feedback from moderators," then, is a bit of a stretch. More like, "they did gather feedback from a small subset of moderators." (Whether this feedback was ignored or incorporated into the final product is another issue I'd be interested to learn more about.) | |
| Oct 11, 2019 at 8:50 | comment | added | nvoigt | And gathering input from a group of people where you have recently executed someone for "giving feedback wrongly" is not actually "real feedback". | |
| Oct 11, 2019 at 8:50 | comment | added | Suvitruf - Andrei Apanasik | @J.R. in moderator's chat. So, even not all mods have participated in that discussion. | |
| Oct 11, 2019 at 8:50 | comment | added | Rand al'Thor | @J.R. I've not been following all the details of TL this week, but it seems like everything was organised through there, with collaboration on wording being done via online-editable documents (and possibly the Mod Team?) | |
| Oct 11, 2019 at 8:49 | comment | added | Suvitruf - Andrei Apanasik | @Randal'Thor I can't call this "feedback". We (mods), actually, couldn't change anything, basically. | |
| Oct 11, 2019 at 8:47 | comment | added | J.R. means 'Just Reinstate' | @Randal'Thor - I'm curious how the moderators were contacted and how the feedback was gathered. | |
| Oct 11, 2019 at 8:46 | comment | added | nvoigt | @Randal'Thor If I say "I will do X and Y" when I know I will not do Y, that's what I call a lie. The fact that I did X is nice, but meaningless. | |
| Oct 11, 2019 at 8:44 | comment | added | Rand al'Thor | They did gather feedback from moderators on this CoC before publishing it. | |
| Oct 11, 2019 at 8:37 | history | answered | nvoigt | CC BY-SA 4.0 |