4 Mar
2026
4 Mar
'26
8:46 p.m.
On Wed, 4 Mar 2026 at 17:42, Kevin Smith via Members <members(a)xmpp.org> wrote:
On 4 Mar 2026, at 17:34, Dave Cridland <dave(a)cridland.net> wrote:
On Wed, 4 Mar 2026 at 11:20, Matthew Wild <mwild1(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Agreed. I'm not strictly opposed to the two teams being the same team,
but I think there is value in having them separate, although they will
obviously work very closely with each other at times. I think it would
be easier to scale the moderation team, because it is less of a
commitment. And we certainly need more people helping with enforcement
than we have now.
Formally establishing a non-Board Conduct Team and assigning them sole
responsibility for moderation would be a valid alternative route. But
I worry it would hinder efforts at improving moderation if we can't
recruit enough people. Plus I actually kind of like the Board ==
Conduct Team situation, as Board is directly elected by the members
and therefore automatically rotating (slowly, but our existing work
teams rotate far more slowly).
Regards,
Matthew
2. Significant moderation decisions may be reported to the Board or
Conduct Team as appropriate.
When I wrote the CoC, I assumed that a moderation team would be the same thing as a
conduct team - or rather, the other way around, with the conduct team being visible and
proactively moderating as needed. I also assumed Board would want to get a conduct team in
place really quickly.
Should be Moderation team just be the Conduct team? If not, why not?
I could easily imagine someone being will to act in the relatively tight confines of ‘bad
stuff happening in MUCs, let’s head it off’ while not wanting to be responsible for the
big ticket items and appeals that the conduct team would be responsible for. I can also
imagine that if most stuff is being handled by a moderation team that the need for a
Conduct Team distinct from Board is reduced. So I quite like the split, although if there
was an active conduct team serving both purposes, that seems fine too.