#201 Leadership Communications Policy: Initial commit
Opened 7 months ago by jflory7. Modified 11 days ago
Fedora-Council/ jflory7/council-docs add/communications-policy  into  main

@@ -8,10 +8,11 @@ 

  * Council Policies

  ** xref:policy/coc-response-policy.adoc[Code of Conduct Response Policy]

  ** xref:policy/community-publishing-platforms.adoc[Community Publishing Platforms]

- ** xref:policy/guiding-policy.adoc[Guiding Policy]

- ** xref:policy/policy-change-policy.adoc[Policy Change Policy]

  ** xref:policy/edition-promotion-policy.adoc[Edition Promotion Policy]

+ ** xref:policy/guiding-policy.adoc[Guiding Policy]

+ ** xref:policy/communications.adoc[Communications Policy]

  ** xref:policy/legal.adoc[Legal & Licensing Policies]

+ ** xref:policy/policy-change-policy.adoc[Policy Change Policy]

  ** xref:policies.adoc[Additional Policies]

  * Council Procedures

  ** xref:procedures/welcome.adoc[Welcome to Council]

@@ -0,0 +1,71 @@ 

+ include::ROOT:partial$attributes.adoc[]

+ 

+ = Communications Policy

+ Justin W. Flory, Fedora Council, Fedora community, and others

+ v1.0.0-DRAFT, 2023-08-30

+ :policy-impacted-teams: Specific Fedora Committees and Teams

The rendered version you showed has this a "Fedora Leadership teams". Is this a change, or is that defined somewhere else? In any case, I think we should spell out exactly what is meant by the term near the beginning of this document somewhere -- I know it's not a long doc but it feels kind of inverted to learn the definition later.

+ 

+ 

+ xref:#definitions-leadership[{policy-impacted-teams}] are required to maintain an xref:#definitions-presence[active presence] on xref:#definitions-platforms[official communications platforms].

+ 

+ 

+ [[rationale]]

+ == Rationale

+ 

+ {policy-impacted-teams} decide, plan, and execute actions that impact many parts of Fedora Linux and the community.

Clever use of a docs macro, but I don't love how the practical result is to repeat "Fedora leadership teams" three times in the first paragraph. It feels a little too much like generated text. This is a minor complaint for a policy document, but still, I'd love for it to feel a bit more human.

+ {policy-impacted-teams} should be discoverable so that the community has clear guidance on how and where to interact with leadership groups.

+ Since the Fedora community uses a diverse range of communication platforms and tools in our work, it is challenging to always know the right place to take a query or discussion topic.

+ Therefore, it is important for {policy-impacted-teams} to share a common approach to where and how we communicate.

+ 

+ There are two main benefits for {policy-impacted-teams} to share a common communication platform:

MInor wording quibble "benefits for ... to" is awkward phrasing. I suggest changing this line to
"When leadership teams use our common platform, this:"
and then changing "Set" to "Sets" in the lines below, to match grammatically.

+ 

+ . *Set expectations with collaborators*:

+   Anyone who needs to engage with {policy-impacted-teams} should feel empowered on how and where to do that.

+   Providing one common place and account for engaging with {policy-impacted-teams} makes it easier to coordinate and collaborate, for members of leadership committees but also community members.

+   We should set expectations so that anyone in the community knows what is required in order to reach {policy-impacted-teams}.

+ . *Set an example for the community*:

+   {policy-impacted-teams} set the tone for the community.

+   We model best practices and invite others in the community to join us in the future of the project.

+   Therefore, {policy-impacted-teams} should be leaders in innovating how we communicate as a large, decentralized project.

This expands to "Therefore Fedora leadership groups should be leaders", which is a tautology. Suggest just striking this line.

+   By using common platforms, we provide models that others can take and learn from, in the true Open Source Way.

s/models/a model/

+ 

+ 

+ [[definitions]]

+ == Definitions

+ 

+ This policy does not intend to provide universal definitions for all the terms used within, but some terms require clarification so this policy is clear.

+ 

+ [[definitions-teams]]

+ === {policy-impacted-teams}

+ 

+ {policy-impacted-teams} are recognized decision-making bodies that chart the future of the project and are important for ensuring critical work happens every Fedora release.

+ For the purpose of this policy, the following groups are considered {policy-impacted-teams}:

+ 

+ * xref:council::index.adoc[Fedora Council]

+ * xref:diversity-inclusion::index.adoc[Fedora Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion Team]

+ * xref:fesco::index.adoc[Fedora Engineering Steering Committee (FESCo)]

+ * xref:mindshare-committee::index.adoc[Fedora Mindshare Committee]

+ 

Perhaps add "Other Fedora teams are also encouraged to follow this policy, but are not required to."

+ [[definitions-platforms]]

+ === Official communications platforms

+ 

+ Official communications platforms are first-priority platforms where Fedora community members discuss, work, and socialize with each other.

+ These platforms are given heavier weight in terms of outages, there is a degree of uptime reliability guaranteed, and they are the _only_ communications platforms that can be considered officially used by the Fedora Project.

"heavier weight in terms of outages" and "degree of uptime reliability guaranteed" are the same thing, aren't they?

I think we should also add that they use open source software under our direct control, rather than third-party and proprietary apps or websites.

+ This is contrast to other platforms that fall under the xref:council::policy/community-publishing-platforms.adoc[Community Publishing Platforms] policy.

+ 

+ For the purpose of this policy, the following platforms are considered official communications platforms:

+ 

+ * Asynchronous:

+   *Fedora Discussion* on https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/

The Fedora Mailing Lists are still official. Please do not omit it.

+ * Synchronous:

+   *Fedora Chat* on https://chat.fedoraproject.org/

+ 

+ [[definitions-presence]]

+ === Active presence

+ 

+ An active presence means that there is someone or several people from the Fedora leadership group who take responsibility to handle incoming topics and feedback shared in the official communications platforms.

+ The person(s) responsible for handling inbound discussion should be a legitimate representative of the {policy-impacted-teams}.

s/person(s)/people/ -- too legalese otherwise.

+ This policy does not specify how long inbound discussion and queries should be responded to, as this is in the best interest of the Fedora leadership group to determine for themselves.

+ 

+ This policy does not intend to antagonize a Fedora leadership group if they do not respond to all and every topic in the official communications platforms.

I feel like this is a "that escalated quickly!" line. I wasn't expecting antagonism. Do we need to say this at all?

+ However, if it becomes habitual for topics and feedback to be routinely ignored by {policy-impacted-teams} on official communications platforms, the Fedora Council is committed to addressing this challenge on a case-by-case basis.

Likewise, do we need this? It feels hostile.

@@ -1,8 +1,8 @@ 

  include::ROOT:partial$attributes.adoc[]

  

  = Community Publishing Platforms

- Justin W. Flory, Fedora Council, Fedora Community, and others

- v1.1.1, 2020-10-02

+ Justin W. Flory, Fedora Council, Fedora community, and others

+ v1.2.0, 2023-08-30

  

  [link=https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/]

  image:https://img.shields.io/badge/License-CC%20BY%204.0-lightgrey.svg[License: CC BY 4.0]
@@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ 

  * Public social media posts

  * Other written communications depending on context

  

- The Fedora Council reserves the authority to modify or expand the definition of Creative Works, based on unique context of the Fedora Project and the Fedora Community..

+ The Fedora Council reserves the authority to modify or expand the definition of Creative Works, based on unique context of the Fedora Project and the Fedora community.

  

  Community Publishing Platforms include, but are not limited to, the following examples:

  
@@ -43,12 +43,13 @@ 

  ** https://discord.gg/fedora

  ** https://telegram.me/fedoranews

  ** https://www.instagram.com/thefedoraproject/

+ ** `#fedora*` channels on https://libera.chat/

  

  

  [[content]]

  == What content is appropriate for Platforms?

  

- Community Publishing Platforms feature Creative Works controlled by but not actively curated by the Fedora Community and Fedora Leadership.

+ Community Publishing Platforms feature Creative Works controlled by but not actively curated by the Fedora community and Fedora Leadership.

  Platforms may be provided on infrastructure or web services hosted and managed by the Fedora Project or its sponsors.

  Community Publishing Platforms are not actively curated because they rely on decentralized community labor and contributions that are difficult to centrally control.

  

This commit introduces a new Fedora Council policy that deals with how
and where Fedora leadership groups communicate. At time of commit, this
policy is still in a draft form and has not yet had the required two-
week community feedback process required for adding or changing official
Fedora policies.

CC: @mattdm @bookwar @dcantrell @sumantrom

Screenshot of a rendered preview of the proposed Leadership Communications Policy, as written in this Pagure Pull Request.

Metadata Update from @jflory7:
- Pull-request tagged with: type - new docs

7 months ago

rebased onto 6158ead

7 months ago

Discussed in 2023-08-30 meeting in #meeting:fedoraproject.org. No logs due to lack of Meetbot infrastructure, see Fedora-Council/tickets#463.


The consensus was to take more time to read, review, and add comments here. We would review this PR in the next meeting, and then also kick off the Policy Change Policy for a public comment period after the next Council meeting.

One point brought up by @bookwar was on the challenge of defining "Fedora leadership groups." A definition for that is hard, and might be out of scope for this policy. We might not want to do that here, right now. Her proposed edit is to remove mention of "Fedora leadership groups" altogether, and instead simply list the four groups that would be impacted, i.e. Council, FESCo, Mindshare, DEI.

Metadata Update from @jflory7:
- Request assigned

6 months ago

1 new commit added

  • s/Fedora leadership groups/Specific Fedora Committees and Teams/
6 months ago

2 new commits added

  • s/Fedora leadership groups/Specific Fedora Committees and Teams/
  • Leadership Communications Policy: Initial commit
6 months ago

See this commit with a proposed edit: s/Fedora leadership groups/Specific Fedora Committees and Teams

I do not like this edit though. I think it dilutes our message and I feel like we are avoiding calling any group or team a "leadership group", when I think we actually need that firmness… does anyone else have thoughts on this?

It is unclear to me how we define "active presence". The way the document presents it, the interpretation is left to the reader and given the subjective nature of active presence, we could find ourselves in a communications problem.

As a member of Fedora leadership, I would like a more clear definition of what we mean by active presence. Surely we don't mean 24/7, 365 days a year.

My preference would be that we lean more in to discussion.fedoraproject.org as the official mechanism for communications by leadership groups to the project. I would like to see chat.fedoraproject.org clarified as both synchronous but also ephemeral. If leadership groups use chat.fedoraproject.org more heavily than discussion.fedoraproject.org, then we begin to exclude certain groups in Fedora purely based on time zones and when people are awake and "Fedora'ing".

As for active presence, I feel the expectation should be that leaders are expected to review discussion.fedoraproject.org daily or as frequently as possible. Leadership groups can come up with their own schedules if they want to. Leaders should focus on keeping up to date with topics and posts in their discussion.fedoraproject.org sections as a first priority and then the entirety of the project as a secondary.

For chat.fedoraproject.org, I would prefer that we ask leadership groups to publish available hours for chat depending on the makeup of the group. And refer community members to discussion.fedoraproject.org as a primary mechanism.

Clever use of a docs macro, but I don't love how the practical result is to repeat "Fedora leadership teams" three times in the first paragraph. It feels a little too much like generated text. This is a minor complaint for a policy document, but still, I'd love for it to feel a bit more human.

The rendered version you showed has this a "Fedora Leadership teams". Is this a change, or is that defined somewhere else? In any case, I think we should spell out exactly what is meant by the term near the beginning of this document somewhere -- I know it's not a long doc but it feels kind of inverted to learn the definition later.

MInor wording quibble "benefits for ... to" is awkward phrasing. I suggest changing this line to
"When leadership teams use our common platform, this:"
and then changing "Set" to "Sets" in the lines below, to match grammatically.

This expands to "Therefore Fedora leadership groups should be leaders", which is a tautology. Suggest just striking this line.

Perhaps add "Other Fedora teams are also encouraged to follow this policy, but are not required to."

"heavier weight in terms of outages" and "degree of uptime reliability guaranteed" are the same thing, aren't they?

I think we should also add that they use open source software under our direct control, rather than third-party and proprietary apps or websites.

s/person(s)/people/ -- too legalese otherwise.

I feel like this is a "that escalated quickly!" line. I wasn't expecting antagonism. Do we need to say this at all?

Likewise, do we need this? It feels hostile.

The Fedora Mailing Lists are still official. Please do not omit it.

rebased onto 723f1b2

6 months ago

The Fedora Council reviewed this Pull Request as well as the wider context around the issue at the Council 2024 Hackfest. Before adopting any kind of formal policy or official documentation, we agreed to focus on building more mindshare in the community for Matrix.

@dcantrell and @rwright were going to team up to write an article about Matrix clients available in Fedora for the Fedora Magazine.

I took an action to improve the Communications doc page using old wiki pages that document best practices that are still relevant in a Matrix world.

@amoloney and I will work on a Community Blog post to start a discussion about the IRC/Matrix situation, where we are at, and what we are doing to improve the current situation.