Reboot and rebuild the community
Openopened 3 months ago by dachary · 25 comments
Reference in New Issue
There is no content yet.
Delete Branch '%!s(<nil>)'
Deleting a branch is permanent. It CANNOT be undone. Continue?
Forgejo is a very healthy product: the technical side is blossoming and making excellent progress, I'm extremely happy about where it is headed. It deserves a healthy, inclusive and welcoming community.
But in the past few weeks the Forgejo community suffered catastrophic failure. It started with a troll who plagued all spaces during weeks and created increasing tensions between members.
It culminated in the past week as I've been targeted by a number of baseless accusations from more than one community member and it created an environment so hostile for me that I had lost hope and saw no other option but to leave.
That's not what I want. That's not what I deserve. And that would be detrimental to Forgejo because there are not that many active contributors.
But more importantly it is not what an inclusive environment looks like. Active contributors should be rewarded and not punished and pressured to leave. Trolls should be excluded promptly and not allowed to plague every spaces during weeks.
Fortunately there is a simple solution: reboot and rebuild.
Forgejo is only a few months old so... why not? Who says it needs to succeed the first time?
Rebooting a community could be very problematic if Forgejo was an established independent organization. But Forgejo is only a few months old and under the umbrella of Codeberg, which makes it as easy as it can be.
metarepository can be archived as a remembrance of our past mistakes and a new one could be created. Copying the good bits won't take long and we can start fresh.
Since I no longer feel welcome here, I fully expect this discussion won't be an easy one but I'm prepare to defend my point of view.
In the meantime, because I feel the need for a cosy place to keep working in Forgejo, I would be grateful if a
governancerepository could be created in the forgejo-contrib organization while this discussion is ongoing. I will start rebuilding there, with whoever is willing to join.
Update: https://codeberg.org/forgejo-contrib/governance was created and the reboot is in progress. Copy pasted with just a few differences compared to when Forgejo was created in October 2022:
Discussions have their separate issue tracker https://codeberg.org/forgejo-contrib/discussions
The irony in this is beautiful.
Who could have thought that a soft-fork of a famous project made by people who over-reacted about the creation of a company (made to bring funding to pay for some developers salary) wouldn't survive more than a year.
It's almost like those people who over-reacted are snowflakes who can't handle things they disagree with because they are used to their safe-space of yes-man.
Oh wait, this issue shows exactly that it's those kind of people!
They're discovering that people on the internet are mean and just want to give up!
pretends to be surprised
Here's a free advice: "reboot and rebuild" the community won't change a thing, people like you are the problematic part of "this community" (even if you will say that people like me are).
PS: Let's see how long it takes for you to ban me from commenting because you only want to interact with people that agree with you.
It doesn't seem that you disagreed with anything in your comment.
It seemed more designed to insult the people working on the project and disrupt the discussion.
I don't see why we should take seriously comments of people who's most recent contribution on all of Codeberg.org was in (checks notes) October.
So after a quick flurry of activity in the community here I've been absent for a little while then come back to whatever this is. I've busy with some of my own projects but want to become more active here again and this is rather disheartening to see.
I've not seen what happened, nor do I particularly care (not in a callous way but I don't want to reopen wars or hostilities to find something out which likely won't even benefit me).
I'm not sure if "rebooting" makes much difference or solves the issues. Ultimately if somebody is going against the code of conduct then they should be dealt with appropriately.
Calling somebody a "Snowflake" looks to me like it already potentially breaks 3 of the CoC items by itself:
So is the issue simply lack of moderation?
In terms of the community, for me I find the fact that using issues in a repo isn't the greatest way of having a community forum.
It seems awkward to me and it just isn't really suited to it. I don't necessarily have an answer to it, there is Discourse obviously but unless you get engagement on it then it will die quickly.
For example the governance stuff isn't really want you want to see at first glance on what I assume is meant to be a more community focused area? Even then the goal of the
metarepo isn't overly clear to me.
Happy to be educated or corrected on any of the above, its sad that a post like this even has to be made.
Personally I don't understand anything going on here.
Since the Forgejo project started, I interacted a lot of times with a lot of people (or maybe it just feels that way because of how rarely I used to interact with the Gitea community) through two Matrix rooms and two Codeberg repos, and didn't encounter any social issues.
Anyways, I agree that whatever happened maybe could be stopped just by taking moderation actions.
However, I think
metais fine and we don't need Discourse, to illustrate that point, I can say that I could hypothetically create a Discourse front-end clone that browses Codeberg issues without feature loss.
EDIT: @TheFrenchGhosty I didn't recognize your name so I was about to lecture you on how you'd not be in a position to judge Forgejo maintainers, i.e. people who do things that matter, then I checked you out and recognized your work, which I place among other open source work that I value, so I'm very disappointed by your behavior.
While I disagree with most of what @TheFrenchGhosty wrote, there is no denying that this first attempt at creating an inclusive community was a spectacular failure.
What defines Forgejo as a community is how it will recover. I have hope https://codeberg.org/forgejo-contrib/governance will be the fresh start it needs. New beginnings and something to be proud of.
I wouldn't call the past months a catastrophic failure. On the contrary. We reached a lot.
I'd rather see it as the Storming part of „Storming, norming, performing”.
I'm not in favour of creating yet another repository in an organisation, that is meant to be used as incubator.
If you don't feel forgejo as org grants you a safe space, I'd have expected the repo to be created under your own name. Especially if you are drafting something.
It leaves a bad smell in my mouth to see forgejo-contrib/governance.
It has been two weeks and although it is a short time I must say it was really nice to go back to a quiet a productive mindset. A credit to everyone involved.
Forgejo v1.19 is around the corner and will be released next week. It brings nice new features and will draw more attention to the project. I would welcome a reconciliation on that occasion. It will require some compromise and will be beneficial to Forgejo as a whole.
Here is what I propose:
This is a very simple proposition and it could become a reality as soon as all parties involved agree, with just a 👍 or "good idea". Not only would it show a great team spirit to the outside world, it would also demonstrate that the Forgejo community is resilient and able to regroup, even after what has been perceived as extreme tensions.
This simplicity comes at a price for those who are most sensitive to criticism because they have to agree to rejoin a space where they no longer feel safe. And it will also require restrain from those who felt the need to express their opinion on other members character or behavior.
Please let me know if that is something you can live with
I agree to what @earl-warren wrote.
Personally, I don't pay attention to what is happening on https://codeberg.org/forgejo-contrib/ by default and I don't think that any "community agreement" should happen there. For the
governancerepo to have legitimacy, I think it should live under the
I agree to what @earl-warren wrote.
I faced issues where such an approach was tried. Both with me as well as apparently with others. That person then made statements in a public space that „forced” the other conversation partner to react, thereby breaking the private discussion.
I'm happy with the proposal but feel, scenarios like this is something we need to address in one way or another.
It would be such a missed opportunity if we loose engaged members over it.
@Ryuno-Ki thanks for your reply.
It is, as you describe, like a cease fire where all parties agree to make peace. There always is the risk that someone will not respect their end of the bargain. It is a leap of faith, for the greater good.
Just for the sake of clarity, do you agree to the proposal?
It sounds reasonable. Yes, I'd like to see this to happen as I stated elsewhere.
I have some loose ends on my end here but need to think about how to tie them up properly.
Two ad-hominem attacks from two different people were posted as an indirect response to the proposal above. Therefore it cannot be implemented as such: it would require cooperation from everyone participating in the meta repository.
This is going to be a long and tense conversation. In the meantime Forgejo community needs a friendly and productive environment to keep working. And the two cannot happen simultaneously.
To that end, I will take it upon myself to move the following repositories in the Forgejo organization:
In these repositories participants are expected to settle all personal disputes outside of the Forgejo public spaces. If a community member has an issue with another community member, they discuss it privately, with the help of a facilitator if needed. They do not use the Forgejo spaces for that purpose.
If anyone has a better idea, please let me know.
I am fine with these repositories moving to the forgejo organization under this condition. It creates a safe environment for me to keep working.
This is done and an issue explaining the split is posted at #197
@fsologureng @tallship although I understand you strongly and publicly disagree to keep this dispute private, I urge you to reconsider your position. I'm available to help as a facilitator if you need me. @fr33domlover also proposed a few times to be a facilitator in these matters and may agree to be of help.
Now I'll go back to working on the preparations for v1.19.
I strongly disagree. You made it personal when you started posting baseless conspiracy theories based on one dedicated member of the community's attempts to be open and transparent with the community about their funding sources.
For the record, the message posted to the the general chatroom:
During that period any and all personal disputes in the Forgejo spaces must be moved to a private discussion. If they are not, they will be removed. It is fine to have disagreements publicly, it is disruptive when they get personal.
I realize this is an unilateral decision on my part and that it does not follow the decision making process. However I also believe this is the right thing to do given the magnitude of the coordinated disruption brought to Forgejo in the past 24h. The alternative would have been to let it continue and go back to the continuous stream of personal disputes and trolling that was inflicted in all Forgejo spaces a few weeks back.
Forgejo is a fantastic project with huge potential, and can be a shining beacon that is examplary for how the FOSS movement operates to the benefit of all. Since the project's inception much has been achieved already. Solid technical foundations have been laid, and contributors find joy in working on codebase and infra. Very important, this. I hope community aspects and inclusion will be similarly well addressed in the near future.
Though time-consuming and strenuous at times, all-in-all I am very happy to have been part of the project's inception, and being among y'all fine and passionate Free Software folks. I sincerely enjoyed it, most the time. As it has never been my intent to take on formal project roles, this is a good opportunity for me to state that again. From now on I will refocus my attention on my own work. These involve projects that intersect "forge federation" in many ways. May we together "forge free software", bring inclusive software development to the Fediverse, and provide pathways that "liberate Free Software" from malign hypercapitalist influences.
@earl-warren can you please document, with facts and a solid rationale, this moderation action?
It had a soothing effect: I'm glad that productive dialogs happened and work resumed. But it needs to be archived and audited by other Forgejo community members. It should be done in a private space otherwise the names of the persons involved will be permanently associated with it, in archive.org and other places.
I realize it is a significant diversion from the technical duties that require our attention. But since noone else volunteered or stepped in, there is no alternative.
I'm working on the moderation report, it will be completed by the end of next week, maybe earlier.
@earl-warren Proposal to increase the likelihood that people are really able to do what you're asking, i.e. move conflicts out of the main chatroom: Create another public room for Forgejo, called something like "Forgejo Reconciliation" or whatever sounds positive and supportive. People can then choose between going to that chatroom, and starting a private chat.
I suspect that during a heated discussion people have little patience to create a new private room, and also, a private room may feel much less safe and supportive than an alternative public room where the whole team is present.
This is low-impact and I wanted to just do it myself, but I don't have admin access to the Forgejo Space so can't add a room there.
Feel free to ignore this if it doesn't seem supportive 🤎
That's a great idea 👍 I do not have admin access to the Forgejo Space but many other people do.
The moderation report was submitted for review in private to four long term members of the Forgejo community.
Ryuno-Ki referenced this issue 2 months ago forgejo-moderation referenced this issue 2 months ago