Post · bonfire.social.coop

@django@social.coop replied · 8 hours ago

hey @flancian I made the original report with the intent that we discuss the issues and potential threat as CWG Ops, and with the members at wide.

The process wasn’t how I imagined it would go, and despite us having opposing views on the matter, I’m glad you have been active in bringing the discussion to this point.

Currently, it seems like a number of the “Could be better” responses actually support your position but are asking for a more clear proposal.

I understand your frustration with the speed of things, but ultimately I think this is worth taking the time to deliberate, this technology was simply not a consideration the last time we revised our policies

In #Flancia we'll meet

@flancian@social.coop replied · 4 hours ago

@django thank you for reaching out, Django! And thank you for getting the discussion started by reporting the account; I think that went well, and several things actually did, even though overall my feeling (as evidenced by the thread in Zulip and the above post) is still of frustration because of not feeling seen or considered enough.

My main frustration with the process, if I pin it down, is the fact that the group repeatedly ignored my proposal to move the account to a limit to allow people to still interact with the account if they want it *and* defuse the risky situation (the removal of follow relationships) at no obvious safety cost to anyone else while the CWG took all the time you need for deliberation. To insist on suspend after I made the points I made for limit, without actually acknowledging them, felt like being deliberately ignored. I also didn't like the fact that people *did* take the time to dismiss my concerns without substance.

In #Flancia we'll meet

@flancian@social.coop replied · 4 hours ago

@django TLDR: this shouldn't have been a suspend but a limit, and the fact that the CWG refused to change this while I wait ~3 weeks for you to meet (fair; I'm not part of the group to determine your meeting cadence) shows, the way I perceived it, a lack of care and concern for what people in the "outgroup" think, feel and need.

Matt Noyes

@Matt_Noyes@social.coop replied · 15 hours ago

@flancian Eduardo, I hear your frustration with our friends on the CWG, but as you well know people on the working groups do their best. The TWG has gotten its share of criticism for the time it has taken to do its work, so it doesn't seem fair to judge the CWG for taking the time it needs.

In #Flancia we'll meet

@flancian@social.coop replied · 15 hours ago

@Matt_Noyes thanks for expressing that Matt! So do you mean that because the TWG got flak for taking time to do things, I shouldn't press the CWG to go faster?

I understand that but the issue here is that I don't feel seen or like my concerns have been taken seriously; did the TWG ever do that to anyone?

I've gotten mostly shallow dismissal and what feels like stonewalling. Not a single person has conceded that I am making at least a reasonable point (e.g. by pointing out that the CWG *shouldn't* suspend people for fuzzy reasons, and *should* seek to update our Code of Conduct to make it reflect how we're moderating, and *should* let the tens of people that their decisions unilaterally affect know when they have taken action -- and ideally publish a moderation transparency report). I am trying to help us uphold the standards I think we should have.

In #Flancia we'll meet

@flancian@social.coop replied · 13 hours ago

@Matt_Noyes I had written a long thread making other points, but in the end I deleted it as it probably wasn't going to aid understanding that much.

I am reconsidering my engagement with Social.coop given recent and not so recent events and in particular the negative reactions to my work from other people.

But regardless of what happens: thank you for what you do and have done for Social.coop and for keeping communication open.

bhaugen

@bhaugen@social.coop replied · 13 hours ago

@flancian
> I am reconsidering my engagement with Social.coop given recent and not so recent events and in particular the negative reactions to my work from other people.

I hope you still stay engaged. I like your work.

In #Flancia we'll meet

@flancian@social.coop replied · 2 hours ago

@bhaugen thank you Bob, I appreciate that a lot and your message came as much needed support in a relatively difficult time (I'm sick, overloaded at work and dealing with some degree of conflict in the coop). I hope your personal life, Mikorizal and your experiments with Valueflow are going well!

Matt Noyes

@Matt_Noyes@social.coop replied · 13 hours ago

@flancian I appreciate the dialogue and enjoy working with you. I appreciate the time you have put in to building social.coop both on the tech side and the community side. I find myself on the opposite side of many questions, like threads, bluesky, and now zeitgeist, but that comes with the unique territory we are in as people working in this alternative space. I do have a deep concern and protective feeling toward people on the working groups, especially the CWG because I know the emotional labor involved and know that the people doing the work are human beings dealing with all the stuff that being human involves. So I want to see them treated not as faceless "mods" but as our kin, our comrades, our selves.

In #Flancia we'll meet

@flancian@social.coop replied · 2 hours ago

@Matt_Noyes I agree that is the ideal! My apologies for any time I have fallen short of that. But being in a group with power (to silence, to sever, to banish) comes with responsibilities, and I believe constructively criticizing such a group and their actions should be allowed and perhaps encouraged.

In #Flancia we'll meet

@flancian@social.coop replied · 21 hours ago

In the meantime I plan to move my main posting to Bluesky or some other Fediverse account and cross-post from there. For all its downsides, Bluesky so far lets me talk to the people I want to talk to and the one time I filed an appeal to a policy humans actually responded to it in a timely manner and were not dismissive of my request.

In #Flancia we'll meet

@flancian@social.coop replied · 14 hours ago

@Matt_Noyes the pattern is clear from my PoV (not saying I am fully right here, just voicing it): suspending is easy, unilateral and quick, removing suspensions even when a directly affected party requests it is hard, group-driven and somehow time (and occasionally emotionally) intensive. At least this time I didn't have to set up a vote and do a week of extra work to undo what a mod did after probably max five minutes of consideration, like last time with Threads :) Or did I?

I'll try to take a break and consider what I want to invest my time and effort on. I am averaging multiple hours of work for the coop some weeks, and all this has made me wonder again if it all makes sense, in particular given that people are making it clear they don't appreciate my way of working.

In any case, I do know that the vast majority of people here have good intentions, and I know you do. Thank you for the work you do and have done for the CWG and for Social.coop in general!