3 Mar
2026
3 Mar
'26
5:56 p.m.
Hi folks,
I would like the board to consider, at their next meeting, the
formation of a team for moderation of XSF discussion venues (at least
MUCs).
"Why?"
Currently the set of people with moderator/admin status in XSF venues
varies from channel to channel, and people are granted permissions on
a rather ad hoc basis. This raises questions of responsibility and
transparency, and moderation varies significantly between channels.
The goal of a moderation team would be to:
- Formally define a set of people to gain moderation rights across all
XSF discussion venues
- Spread the responsibility, accountability and decision-making among members
- Improve communication between moderators (formation of a dedicated
MUC for the team to discuss moderation matters would be sensible)
Currently moderators act primarily as individuals, which leaves them
open to being singled out for retaliation, rather than feeling like
they have the backing of the XSF. This sometimes leads to no
moderation action being taken, when it probably should (if we care
about the health of our community). If moderation decisions can be
agreed with a team, this will help make our moderation actions more
consistent and more fair to both the moderator and the moderated.
"What would be the difference from the conduct team?"
I see the conduct team as a smaller group reserved for tackling only
important cases, mostly reactively, in response to reports and appeals
as described in the CoC. The moderation team would (ideally) consist
of slightly more people. They would be responsible for the day-to-day
moderation duties while following the words of the CoC and the
direction of the conduct team where provided.
Regards,
Matthew
3 Mar
3 Mar
6:28 p.m.
Thanks Matthew!
* Matthew Wild <mwild1(a)gmail.com> [2026-03-03 17:56]:
I would like the board to consider, at their next
meeting, the
formation of a team for moderation of XSF discussion venues (at least
MUCs).
this is a great proposal, and (looking in retrospect) was overdue for a
long time.
- Spread the responsibility, accountability and
decision-making among members
This is also something that has prevented me from volunteering with
room moderation in the past, so if Board decides to create such a team,
I'd be ready to volunteer.
Georg
6:46 p.m.
Hi,
I'm not one to TOFU normally, but I have nothing to add except a +1.
On Dienstag, 3. März 2026 17:56:15 Mitteleuropäische Normalzeit Matthew Wild
wrote:
Hi folks,
I would like the board to consider, at their next meeting, the
formation of a team for moderation of XSF discussion venues (at least
MUCs).
"Why?"
Currently the set of people with moderator/admin status in XSF venues
varies from channel to channel, and people are granted permissions on
a rather ad hoc basis. This raises questions of responsibility and
transparency, and moderation varies significantly between channels.
The goal of a moderation team would be to:
- Formally define a set of people to gain moderation rights across all
XSF discussion venues
- Spread the responsibility, accountability and decision-making among
members
- Improve communication between moderators (formation of a
dedicated MUC for the team to discuss moderation matters would be sensible)
Currently moderators act primarily as individuals, which leaves them
open to being singled out for retaliation, rather than feeling like
they have the backing of the XSF. This sometimes leads to no
moderation action being taken, when it probably should (if we care
about the health of our community). If moderation decisions can be
agreed with a team, this will help make our moderation actions more
consistent and more fair to both the moderator and the moderated.
"What would be the difference from the conduct team?"
I see the conduct team as a smaller group reserved for tackling only
important cases, mostly reactively, in response to reports and appeals
as described in the CoC. The moderation team would (ideally) consist
of slightly more people. They would be responsible for the day-to-day
moderation duties while following the words of the CoC and the
direction of the conduct team where provided.
kind regards,
Jonas
7:43 p.m.
Hi everyone,
This sounds like a good idea. Pragmatically: Would this be set up as a Work
Team under our bylaws? How would members be selected? Do we have enough
people interested in joining? Maybe preemptively, we can think of a concept
charter for such a team?
Since the team would be using the Code of Conduct as a guide, it could also
help address some of the questions about its applicability that came up
many moons ago but never fully got resolved. This could be a good way to
get new feedback and see if improvement of the CoC in practice is desirable.
Kind regards,
Guus
On Tue, Mar 3, 2026 at 5:56 PM Matthew Wild <mwild1(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi folks,
I would like the board to consider, at their next meeting, the
formation of a team for moderation of XSF discussion venues (at least
MUCs).
"Why?"
Currently the set of people with moderator/admin status in XSF venues
varies from channel to channel, and people are granted permissions on
a rather ad hoc basis. This raises questions of responsibility and
transparency, and moderation varies significantly between channels.
The goal of a moderation team would be to:
- Formally define a set of people to gain moderation rights across all
XSF discussion venues
- Spread the responsibility, accountability and decision-making among
members
- Improve communication between moderators (formation of a dedicated
MUC for the team to discuss moderation matters would be sensible)
Currently moderators act primarily as individuals, which leaves them
open to being singled out for retaliation, rather than feeling like
they have the backing of the XSF. This sometimes leads to no
moderation action being taken, when it probably should (if we care
about the health of our community). If moderation decisions can be
agreed with a team, this will help make our moderation actions more
consistent and more fair to both the moderator and the moderated.
"What would be the difference from the conduct team?"
I see the conduct team as a smaller group reserved for tackling only
important cases, mostly reactively, in response to reports and appeals
as described in the CoC. The moderation team would (ideally) consist
of slightly more people. They would be responsible for the day-to-day
moderation duties while following the words of the CoC and the
direction of the conduct team where provided.
Regards,
Matthew
4 Mar
4 Mar
12:20 p.m.
On Tue, 3 Mar 2026 at 18:44, Guus der Kinderen
<guus.der.kinderen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi everyone,
This sounds like a good idea. Pragmatically: Would this be set up as a Work Team under
our bylaws? How would members be selected? Do we have enough people interested in joining?
Maybe preemptively, we can think of a concept charter for such a team?
I think a work team makes sense, to ensure we have some formal
structure and oversight for a team that will be representing the XSF
via its actions. Here is a proposed charter (Guus and I worked on this
together):
# XSF Moderation Team Charter
## 1. Purpose
The Moderation Team is established as a formal XSF Work Team to ensure
consistent, fair, and transparent moderation across XSF discussion
venues. The Team supports community health, enforces the XSF Code of
Conduct, and ensures moderation actions are coordinated and
accountable.
## 2. Scope of Responsibilities
The Moderation Team shall be responsible for the moderation of
XSF-managed dicussion venues, including chat channels and mailing
lists. The team shall work to ensure that the XSF's Code of Conduct
(XEP-0458) is followed by participants, and shall also respect and
enforce decisions made by the Conduct Team.
## 3. Membership
Membership in the Moderation Team is by Board appointment.
## 4. Decision-Making
1. **Shared responsibility:** Moderation actions should be coordinated
among multiple team members when possible.
2. **Consensus preferred:** Decisions should aim for consensus; in
urgent cases, moderators may act individually.
3. **Escalation:** Issues beyond day-to-day moderation, including
serious conduct concerns, are escalated to the Conduct Team.
## 5. Communication
1. The Team shall maintain an internal, secure communication channel
for coordination and record keeping.
2. Significant moderation decisions may be reported to the Board or
Conduct Team as appropriate.
6:34 p.m.
On Wed, 4 Mar 2026 at 11:20, Matthew Wild <mwild1(a)gmail.com> wrote:
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'm not wed to any particular structure - whatever works - but I feel
strongly this should be documented into the CoC once it's settled.
Dave.
6:42 p.m.
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
<mailto:mwild1@gmail.com>> wrote:
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.
/K
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'm not wed to any particular structure - whatever works - but I feel strongly this
should be documented into the CoC once it's settled.
Dave.
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. 
3 Mar
3 Mar
8:50 p.m.
El Tue, 3 Mar 2026 16:56:15 +0000
Matthew Wild <mwild1(a)gmail.com> escribió:
Hi folks,
I would like the board to consider, at their next meeting, the
formation of a team for moderation of XSF discussion venues (at least
MUCs).
"Why?"
Currently the set of people with moderator/admin status in XSF venues
varies from channel to channel, and people are granted permissions on
a rather ad hoc basis. This raises questions of responsibility and
transparency, and moderation varies significantly between channels.
The goal of a moderation team would be to:
- Formally define a set of people to gain moderation rights across all
XSF discussion venues
- Spread the responsibility, accountability and decision-making among members
- Improve communication between moderators (formation of a dedicated
MUC for the team to discuss moderation matters would be sensible)
Currently moderators act primarily as individuals, which leaves them
open to being singled out for retaliation, rather than feeling like
they have the backing of the XSF. This sometimes leads to no
moderation action being taken, when it probably should (if we care
about the health of our community). If moderation decisions can be
agreed with a team, this will help make our moderation actions more
consistent and more fair to both the moderator and the moderated.
"What would be the difference from the conduct team?"
I see the conduct team as a smaller group reserved for tackling only
important cases, mostly reactively, in response to reports and appeals
as described in the CoC. The moderation team would (ideally) consist
of slightly more people. They would be responsible for the day-to-day
moderation duties while following the words of the CoC and the
direction of the conduct team where provided.
+1 in complete agreement
Shall Board accept your proposal for consideration, maybe Board could put
forward a prior provisional call for volunteers in case the initiative gets
final approval?
Regards,
Matthew
4 Mar
4 Mar
3:01 a.m.
On 3/3/26 9:56 AM, Matthew Wild wrote:
Hi folks,
I would like the board to consider, at their next meeting, the
formation of a team for moderation of XSF discussion venues
Good idea.
(at least MUCs).
I think it would be good to have consistent moderation across both
chatrooms and email lists.
As to the latter, I might be the only person who pays (occasional)
attention to them or who has access to list moderation. This seems bad
for numerous reasons, not least being that my attention is mostly
elsewhere these days.
Speaking of which (this is kind of an iteam topic), we need to migrate
the lists from the bunker to mailman3.com but I botched the job last
time and haven't followed through on trying again. Once we migrate the
lists (perhaps someone else ought to do this??), we can set up proper
moderation.
Alternatively, we could ditch the lists and just use chatrooms...
Peter
5:54 a.m.
On March 3, 2026 9:01:50 PM EST, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter(a)stpeter.im> wrote:
On 3/3/26 9:56 AM, Matthew Wild wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I would like the board to consider, at their next meeting, the
> formation of a team for moderation of XSF discussion venues
Also +1 on this.
Alternatively, we could ditch the lists and just use
chatrooms...
+1000 on this. So annoying to need email when we have chatrooms.
10
days inactive
11
days old
12 comments
11 participants
participants (11)
-
Dave Cridland -
Georg Lukas -
Gonzalo Raul Nemmi -
Guus der Kinderen -
Jonas Schäfer -
Kevin Smith -
Kim Alvefur -
Matthew Wild -
Peter Saint-Andre -
Stephen Paul Weber -
Travis Burtrum