Node.js's Discord Roles (Sync)

[ovflowd]

Hey folks 👋 I'm opening this on behalf of @VoltrexKeyva.

Since launching the Node.js Discord server, we’ve set up a few roles to help identify collaborators in the Node.js project. So far, we’ve created:

• Node.js TSC – for members of the Node.js Technical Steering Committee
• Node.js Collaborator – for anyone in the Node.js GitHub organization
• Node.js Ambassador – for officially recognized Node.js Ambassadors

The goal was to keep things simple and avoid making fine-grained distinctions that don’t really apply in a social context like Discord. For instance, I didn’t think we needed a separate “Triager” role, since triaging is something specific to GitHub, not Discord.

@VoltrexKeyva suggested that the roles on Discord should better reflect those on GitHub — specifically proposing that we add distinct roles for Core Collaborators and Triagers.

Personally, I’m neutral on this but feel the current roles are sufficient. That said, I’d love input from the TSC on whether we should adjust the role structure.

[ovflowd]

cc @nodejs/tsc

[avivkeller]

FWIW, these roles reflect the descriptions provided in our moderation policy:

Collaborator refers to any individual with configured triage role or higher in any Node.js GitHub organization repository.

TSC refers to the Node.js Technical Steering Committee.

[ovflowd]

I do agree with @avivkeller here. And since there has been no input from any TSC member, I do believe per lazy consensus seeking they are in agreemeent.

One small @nodejs/tsc bump, and if in another week we don't get any -1, I'll close this issue.

[mcollina]

Personally I would go with something significantly simpler and keep the sync needed only if needed for whatever reasons.

The important part is to have a few people with admin/owner permission (or just a holder account with credentials in OnePassword).

[ovflowd]

The important part is to have a few people with admin/owner permission (or just a holder account with credentials in OnePassword).

My understanding is that as the Discord server is an independently owned community, we shouldn't have ownership permissions over there. For CoC escalations, these can be directly deferred to @vcarl. He acknowledged that CoC escalations imposed by the Foundation would be guaranteed as defined in the Foundation's CoC and the shared (agreed) moderation policies for the community.

So far, members of the Node team (me, @MattIPv4 and others) have "mod" permissions, in case we need to kick/block/enforce CoC. That said, it's not part of the agreement for us to have an admin account/owner account (even if for extreme situations) as the server doesn't belong to us (it is independently owned) and we defer moderation to their moderation team.

Personally I would go with something significantly simpler and keep the sync needed only if needed for whatever reasons.

Right now we have the roles described on the opening thread. They have worked so far without issues. I personally feel we should leave as it is.

[MattIPv4]

👍 I am +1 for leaving the server in the control of Carl and the community mod team, though if there's significant concern with that, a common pattern I've seen with brand servers is to setup a stub account for the brand that technically owns the server, and then ensure that the day-to-day owners have a dedicated role right at the top with admin.

[ovflowd]

👍 I am +1 for leaving the server in the control of Carl and the community mod team, though if there's significant concern with that, a common pattern I've seen with brand servers is to setup a stub account for the brand that technically owns the server, and then ensure that the day-to-day owners have a dedicated role right at the top with admin.

Noted. That said, it’s important to mention that we originally agreed to keep ownership as is, which was one of Carl’s requirements—and we were fine with that. I’m okay with changing it if everyone is on board, but I wouldn’t recommend making a big deal over us having an "admin" account or not. Things have been running smoothly, and I’d prefer to keep them that way 😅 (if possible).

[BridgeAR]

I think someone from the foundation or the tsc should have owner rights for example with a neutral admin account.

Besides that I have no strong opinion and I am fine either way.

[mcollina]

There was no objections to @BridgeAR plan, could you help set it up @ovflowd ?

[MattIPv4]

I believe OpenJSF Ops already has an account that we could ask Carl to transfer ownership to, and then make sure Carl still has a role at the top w/ full admin?

[ovflowd]

I think someone from the foundation or the tsc should have owner rights for example with a neutral admin account.

Besides that I have no strong opinion and I am fine either way.

I don't think we can force or impose that, this is an independently owned server that was granted an official status. It is not an OpenJS community or space nor owned by the OpenJS. Plus, Carl is explicitly against we having an admin account as that hinders the "independently owned account"

[ovflowd]

There was no objections to @BridgeAR plan, could you help set it up @ovflowd ?

Sorry, I cannot help with that, because:

1. I don't have the authority to create such account
2. I personally disagree with this plan and this cannot be an one side decision from the TSC, the TSC cannot make an one sided decision here without having the other party to agree with this plan.

[marco-ippolito]

I'm not comfortable with an "official status" chat server not being managed by at least one person from foundation or tsc. For example in case of a CoC violation there is no way to escalate etc... it's up to "admins" being kind enough to help moderation.

"explicitly against we having an admin account as that hinders the "independently owned account"

If so I think we should reconsider the "official status"