Clarify new moderation approach in operators channel #1389
Conversation
A few weeks ago we made the decision to switch operators@ to require explicit membership to be able to participate. The channel documentation on the website was not updated at the time to reflect this change, this commit fixes that.
content/community/operators-rules.md
Outdated
| @@ -91,7 +102,7 @@ We recommend that all public servers publish contact addresses through this mech | |||
|
|
|||
| ### How do I get channel membership? | |||
|
|
|||
| First, don't fret about it. Membership is generally not required to participate in the chat, it is only used as an aid for moderation purposes when necessary. | |||
| Membership is automatically granted by authbot when the criteria are met. | |||
|
|
|||
| If you have alternative proof that you are a server operator or a member of the XMPP Standards Foundation, you may request membership manually from one of the channel admins. Please don't ask for membership in any other circumstances - it won't be given. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we want to keep this?
("you may request membership manually from one of the channel admins")
Seems contradictory to "Participation rights are managed automatically"
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not sure. Specifically I don't want a flood of manual verification requests, and I'm not sure what manual verification would look like anyway. The only valid case I can think of is if someone does publish a contact address via '157, but prefer to join the MUC from a different address (which I think is a valid use case).
I'm fine with continuing to not grant participation rights to people who don't publish contact addresses.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would like to remove it.
Otherwise it may create a lot of effort for the moderation team for exactly that reason ("what does manual verification look like").
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it would be more clear if the section "How do I get channel membership" defines the mechanism that is used (which is now described under the 'Who is authbot' FAQ section).
I propose to re-order the text from both sections like this:
### Who is authbot?
You may notice an occupant of the channel called `authbot`. It is a moderation assistant bot that automatically grants channel membership to users, as described in the 'How do I get channel membership' section of this document.
### How do I get channel membership?
Membership is automatically granted by authbot when the criteria are met. It attempts to identify room participants as server operators. It performs a [contact addresses (XEP-0157)](https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0157.html) query on servers and looks for a match with any of the returned XMPP addresses.
|
Oh, this was already merged. Nevermind then, my suggested change isn't something I feel strongly about. |
A few weeks ago we made the decision to switch operators@ to require explicit membership to be able to participate. The channel documentation on the website was not updated at the time to reflect this change, this commit fixes that.
|
I think the restrictions are a bit harsh. What about users? We had situation where the operators support chat was not available anymore. What about interested potential operators asking for help? |
|
Shouldn't his go through Board first? |
operators@ is not for users. User support has happened there in the past, but that was strictly speaking off-topic.
There are other venues for that, such as xmpp:[email protected].
no idea (: |
Sure, and we delayed this action for a long time. But the channel was not fit for purpose. Semi-closed operator discussion venues are very common for other open networks, including email and telephony. A high-signal, low-noise channel for operators is extremely beneficial for the network. It doesn't have to be the same place that provides general support - as noted in previous comments, such venues already exist for that. |
|
Okay I see |
A few weeks ago we made the decision to switch operators@ to require explicit membership to be able to participate. The channel documentation on the website was not updated at the time to reflect this change, this commit fixes that.