forgejo
/
meta
Archived
20
27
Fork 7
Code Issues 48 Pull Requests Releases Activity

Split meta in discussions and governance #197

New Issue
Closed
opened 2023-03-17 08:23:50 +00:00 by earl-warren · 8 comments
earl-warren commented 2023-03-17 08:23:50 +00:00
Owner

As of today, the meta repository is split in two:

The meta repository is dedicated to resolving a public dispute between Forgejo community members. The background of this urgent action can be found in this issue.

As of today, the meta repository is split in two: * Discussions are moved to https://codeberg.org/forgejo/discussions * Governance decisions and documentation are moved to https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance The meta repository is dedicated to resolving a public dispute between Forgejo community members. The background of this urgent action can be found [in this issue](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/issues/187#issuecomment-842486).
earl-warren added the
Governance
 label 2023-03-17 08:23:50 +00:00
Ryuno-Ki commented 2023-03-17 12:26:02 +00:00

Given that those two repos were part of forgejo-contrib before how do we want to handle decisions that were made there.

I personally feel they are illegitimate unless they receive another round of approval by the community now they are in the forgejo space.

Given that those two repos were part of forgejo-contrib before how do we want to handle decisions that were made there. I personally feel they are illegitimate unless they receive another round of approval by the community now they are in the forgejo space.
oliverpool commented 2023-03-17 14:35:50 +00:00
Owner

@Ryuno-Ki to be more precise on your comment, only one decision was made there, as far as I can tell:

Both other decisions were cherry-picked from meta:

Or did I miss something?

How do you want to re-handle the Bannishement decision? I see several options:

  • open an issue to confirm the ban
  • let the decision be taken by the moderation team (once elected)
@Ryuno-Ki to be more precise on your comment, only one decision was made there, as far as I can tell: - https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/issues/6 Bannishement of a troll (cross-posted here https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/issues/194, but not discussed there) Both other decisions were cherry-picked from `meta`: - https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/issues/7 Add Privacy as Forgejo value: cherry-pick from https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/pulls/178 - https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/issues/8 Add Accessibility as Forgejo value: cherry-pick from https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/pulls/179 Or did I miss something? How do you want to re-handle the Bannishement decision? I see several options: - open an issue to confirm the ban - let the decision be taken by the moderation team (once elected)
Ryuno-Ki commented 2023-03-17 15:34:01 +00:00

Now there's someone I talked to about this and got asked not to mention that the conversation happened (which puts me in a tricky situation. Would love to avoid these otherwise I can't agree to discuss things in private).

I haven't checked either repository (because my notification counter was already large enough). If there are only a handful of issues: great!

The ban issue was cross-posted, so there's awareness of it. I'd defer to the moderation team for further handling here.

The other two issues are cherry-picked, i.e. originated in meta. Here some comparison would be handy to see whether new arguments were brought up that require attention. Then one of the issue could be declared as duplicate of the other and closed.

Now there's someone I talked to about this and got asked not to mention that the conversation happened (which puts me in a tricky situation. Would love to avoid these otherwise I can't agree to discuss things in private). I haven't checked either repository (because my notification counter was already large enough). If there are only a handful of issues: great! The ban issue was cross-posted, so there's awareness of it. I'd defer to the moderation team for further handling here. The other two issues are cherry-picked, i.e. originated in meta. Here some comparison would be handy to see whether new arguments were brought up that require attention. Then one of the issue could be declared as duplicate of the other and closed.
earl-warren commented 2023-03-17 15:55:07 +00:00
Poster
Owner

I checked them and cherry-picked some of the changes. Now I'll move over to these repositories and it will feel great to have some quiet productive time in the following days. There is much to do 🚀

I checked them and cherry-picked some of the changes. Now I'll move over to these repositories and it will feel great to have some quiet productive time in the following days. There is much to do 🚀
👍 1
Ryuno-Ki commented 2023-03-17 16:13:16 +00:00

I take then this issue is going to be closed soon?

I take then this issue is going to be closed soon?
oliverpool commented 2023-03-17 16:29:07 +00:00
Owner

@Ryuno-Ki my notification counter is also far to high 😄

I just manually looked at the closed issues and pull requests: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/issues?q=&type=all&sort=&state=closed&labels=&milestone=0&assignee=0&poster=0

I take then this issue is going to be closed soon?

I think that your concern has been addressed.
How long should we wait to see if other people have concerns? Or should they just open a new issue in that case?

I would recommend closing this issue in 7 days after the last concern has been addressed.

@Ryuno-Ki my notification counter is also far to high 😄 I just manually looked at the closed issues and pull requests: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/issues?q=&type=all&sort=&state=closed&labels=&milestone=0&assignee=0&poster=0 > I take then this issue is going to be closed soon? I think that your concern has been addressed. How long should we wait to see if other people have concerns? Or should they just open a new issue in that case? I would recommend closing this issue in 7 days after the last concern has been addressed.
Ryuno-Ki added the due date 2023-03-24 2023-03-17 16:51:01 +00:00
Ryuno-Ki commented 2023-03-17 16:51:18 +00:00

7 days sounds reasonable. I set a due date.

7 days sounds reasonable. I set a due date.
👍 1
earl-warren commented 2023-03-25 08:44:47 +00:00
Poster
Owner

Closing as agreed. Posted the following note in the repository description to avoid confusion:

ARCHIVE - discussions now happen at https://codeberg.org/forgejo/discussions and governance agreements at https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance

There has only been one confusion in the past week, it is not a significant problem.

Closing as agreed. Posted the following note in the repository description to avoid confusion: ARCHIVE - discussions now happen at https://codeberg.org/forgejo/discussions and governance agreements at https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance There has only been one confusion in the past week, it is not a significant problem.
This repo is archived. You cannot comment on issues.
No Branch/Tag Specified
Branches Tags
readme
Labels
Clear labels   
Accessibility

Relates to Accessibility (a11y) of product, project and process.   
Agreement proposal

Forgejo agreement proposal, following a discussion   
Communication

Relates to all channels, social media, website, blog posts.   
Election

Process of appointing a person into a role or team (if choosing people just for a specific one-time task, use the Entrustment label)   
Entrustment

Process of choosing/approving specific people to do a critical/high-impact one-time task (if choosing people for an ongoing role/team, use the Election label)   
Governance

Relates to processes, procedures and decision-making.   
Meeting

An upcoming team meeting   
[Decision] Building proposal(s)

We're in a decision-making process, buiding one or more proposals to address the shared aim based on the criteria   
[Decision] Gathering criteria

We're in a decision-making process, gathering criteria, considerations and needs   
[Decision] Integrating concerns

We're in a decision-making process, working with a proposal, trying to integrate concerns and create modifications/support such that the proposal works for everyone
No Label
Accessibility
Agreement proposal
Communication
Election
Entrustment
Governance
Meeting
[Decision] Building proposal(s)
[Decision] Gathering criteria
[Decision] Integrating concerns
Milestone
Clear milestone
No items
No Milestone
Assignees
Clear assignees
No Assignees
3 Participants
Due Date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format 'yyyy-mm-dd'.

2023-03-24

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: forgejo/meta#197
There is no content yet.
Delete Branch "%!s(<nil>)"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may exist for a short time before cleaning up, in most cases it CANNOT be undone. Continue?