2024-01-24

CompSoc's committee and its Discord server moderators discuss the future moderation of the server.

Minutes by Vincent and Chives. Vincent's minutes:

Attendees

Fergus (President), Ali (Vice-President), Krzystof (4th Year Rep), Yuto (Graphic Designer), Chives (Old Person Rep), Vincent (1st Year Rep), Ol (Tardis), Aurora (School Rep), Tomas (3rd Year Rep), Arin (2nd Year Rep), Maya (Secretary), Kit, Arch (HTB), Rokas, Paula, Aria

Minutes

Each speaker has 30 seconds for opening statements. Fergus encourages everyone to propose solutions that will take into account the position of both parties.

Opening statements

• Fergus
  • There are issues with unformalized constitution
  • A lot of procedures are passed down by word-of-mouth, not written
  • The goal is to have some solution that both parties would be happy with (and feel represented)
  • Fergus won't be in CompSoc committee for much longer, so he aims to help moderate this debate
• Krzystof
  • Agrees with Fergus on the matter; all decisions related to the society should be decided by the elected committee.
  • Acknowledges the Discord server is separate from the society, although that is strange.
• Tomas
  • CompSoc fills a very nice place in university life, and previous committees have done a big job shaping CompSoc into what it is today
  • A bit confused how CompSoc is different from the server
• Vincent
  • As first year rep, Vincent is quite new to the context of the society and Discord server.
  • Will to try vote on something that benefits both parties, as well as all CompSoc members.
• Chives
  • From what he's seen, the whole process looks unorganized and unformalized - old moderators stay with their roles, even if they aren't involved in the server.
  • Things should be formalized

Arch, from Hack the Borough, walks in

• Kit
  • Has been around in the society for a long time, but also acknowledges that people who have been around for long do not necessarily know better or the right way
• Rokas
  • Was on the committee a few years ago
  • Rokas thinks there is more good being done than harm with old committee members doing moderation
  • Rokas is happy to be removed from the moderation team, but wants to stand for those who want to stay
• Arch
  • "Thing is, I have no idea what this is about"
• Yuto
  • Doesn't participate in Discord moderation much
  • The impression Yuto made when he joined the university in 2020 is that the Discord server is very important for the society.
  • The fact that the moderation team is not directly related to CompSoc was strange, and the moderation team details should be formalized.
• Paula
  • Was on the committee long ago. Still has the role, but does not do any moderation.
  • Understands the need to ensure that those who stay with the role actually are involved in moderation.
  • The risk is that if a committee gets elected that doesn't have the society's best interests at heart, there should be a group of people who can advice the committee members
  • This problem should have formal documentation - most things are just word of mouth
• Aurora
  • "Agree with most of the committee"
  • Hopes for clarification why the moderation team is separate from the society
  • Understands that a large part of the debate is about protected channels, but feels neutral because Aurora is not a part of any of the protected communities
• Aria
  • Was on the committee 2-3 years ago, now in Tardis
  • Wants the server be more resistant to bad committee members if there is one in the future
  • Would like to have a say for graduates in the server, so graduates stay in CompSoc
• Ol
  • Wasn't part of the first meeting, wants to get a better picture of the problem before reaching a decision
• Ali
  • 30 people had a committee role in the past. Ali believes this role should be a minimum role, and not full of an excessive number of people
  • Questions whether a future committee that disagrees with the moderators or is "a bad committee" - would the moderation team be able to communicate with them or would it divide the server?
  • "If a future committee wants to take the server to a different direction, how will things go?"
• Maya
  • The impression being on the server is that a university space with 16-year-olds should not be moderated by older graduates.
  • Recognizes that there is a lot of moderation that needs to be done, agrees with Charlotte's proposals.
• Arin
  • Was confused by degree of separation by the server and the society
  • Agrees with Yuto - regardless of the solution, it needs to be formalized in the constitution
  • Believes the problem stems from the fact that we don't know what is going on

Sidenote: Fergus says we need an open meeting about constitution changes (with CompSoc members).

Yuto leaves the meeting

Main discussion

Note to readers: the conversation below is not an exact quote, but a close account

• Fergus
  • The current model of the protected channels may not be as protected as we think
  • If malicious person X knows person Y, and is looking on dirt on person Y, they can join protected channels without writing messages, and monitor secret conversation (for example, person Y is closeted).
  • Proposal: protected channels are linked to the Discord server, and there are notifications when people join.
  • People who are moderators in CompSoc would be moderators in protected servers.
  • This would mean a future president (who sees all protected channels by default) would not be able to access these servers, because they would function separately from the CompSoc server.
• Tomas:
  • Agrees with the points in terms of security, but doesn't know how vetting works
• Fergus:
  • Vetting would be up to each protected server
• Aria:
  • Change the system that makes a bot send a message to the channel, so a new server is not needed
  • Change the moderation role permissions so presidents don't have access
• Fergus:
  • Even though it seems the server is separate from the society, there is an element that the server reflects on the society.
  • Fergus had a discussion with Neil about giving the school of informatics power to launch an impeachment of the president (this discussion followed the committee of last year). This also makes sense given that president is now a staff position.
  • We could decide on some number of positions (e.g., president, tech-sec and secretary) who have equal moderation roles.

Moving forward, the term "legacy" will include all Discord staff/moderators who are not current elected committee members.

• Fergus:
  • Legacy will be written into the constitution
  • Legacy + 2/3 majority can invoke an impeachment
  • Becuase this is written into the constitution, it's enforcable

*Charlotte arrives, Vincent and Krzystof leaves. The remaining minutes are written by Chives.*

Fergus:

• The definition and who to be of “legacy committee” to be discussed in the future.

When should moderation permissions be removed from members?

• Ol:
  • Not doing any moderation does not necessarily mean moderation privilege should be taken away, e.g. people who has moderation privilege because they need to do server admin stuff
• Fergus:
  • This is to be decided case-by-case
  • Removing a moderator from the legacy team should be voted on by all members
  • Moderators should be active in the server. An inactive mod e.g., no posts in a month
  • Possible also to remove someone’s moderation privilege and give them back in a later time if they hope to return.
• Tomas:
  • Very old moderators should give background information
  • Is the society the server?
• KitB: (History of division of the server and society)
  • The IRC server was started a long time ago by members, and a few years ago society decided it to be the society's official server. Moderators decided to give society admin access. Committee taking over is a bit of a [did not catch the word] to members of the server who have been around for a long time.
• Fergus:
  • The server is the official server, though separate from society.
  • As CompSoc grows (with SIGs etc.), .. [missed the end of the sentence]
  • It isn’t something we want to go and make a separate server, it is important for the committee to have a say in what we do on the server. Server is not just a legacy members server, it’s a members’ server.
• Tomas:
  • Server becoming more CompSoc-y as time goes on. People didn’t know (anything happened before) assumes CompSoc equals the Discord server
• Fergus:
  • Maintaining a balance is important, and it can be achieved e.g. by legacy members being able to bring up impeachment.
  • (On how CompSoc is different from any other societies) CompSoc is run by a large number of people i.e. around 50. (Give examples of graduates involved in the Discord server, and interact with newer students) We want people to stick around (it’s very valuable), but also to look forward.
• Maya:
  • (On why possible changes are suggested) Something running as in the last 20 years doesn't mean it’s not broken, doesn't mean it never needs to change. Server not running by committee is strange, anything CompSoc branding is CompSoc.

10 minute break

Charlotte's plan

• Charlotte:

  • In old committee years some/all committee/president often had moderator roles, people think this was a bad idea.
  • Propose: to send out call for moderators (among all users on CompSoc Discord server)
  • If committee or moderators disagrees with someone within their group being moderator, they decide if the person should go. This can be a problem as each group decides within. The process needs to be formalised. Either committee and moderators can raise e.g. suggest to add moderators, both parties need to agree.

• Paula:

  • Constitution should state minimum members of moderators from committee/dedicated moderators

• Ali:

  • There should be levels of moderations

People agree maybe 2 levels of moderators, e.g. one does tasks e.g. removing spams, another does more including server admin

• Paula:
  • Consensus within and between committee and moderators(?)
• Fergus:
  • Suggests members vote(?)
• KitB:
  • Needs something fault tolerance, resistant from bad committee
• Fergus:
  • (Examples of possible effort to improve involvement on CompSoc decisions) To stream AGM/EGM, as many members (on Discord) does not come to STMU
• Paula:
  • Abusing mod power should be punished e.g. timeout. The idea needs to be formalised.
  • Two levels of mod should be good, e.g. one has power to remove spam, another to make more decisions.

Paula leaves

• Fergus:
  • About dealing with malicious committee: there is the impeachment procedure.
  • Agrees with Paula’s idea of having a punishment procedure.
  • If current students misconduct, the school has procedures.
  • For people who have graduated, the school (technically) can do something(?). On Discord, actions can be taken against the user e.g. timeout, which can be less of a concern compared to IRL.

Members vote: concerns about manipulation if not much restrictions on who can vote (everyone in the Discord server can vote), maybe some verification e.g. requires matriculation of other forms of membership. Moderators can be of a higher level of trust as they need to be approved by moderators (committee/non-committee) also with the impeachment process, the system should be robust.

• Fergus:
  • Protected channels should have separate moderators.

Whiteboard

• Public mod application process
• Adding/removing mod process to be formalized
  • Voted within both committee mods [Note on ambiguity from writer: Committee who are also mods or all elected committee members?] and non-committee mod; both groups have to agree to proceed the change
• Clear consequences for misuse mod power
  • 3 strike system?
• 2 levels - how to promote & demote
• Separate system for protected channels