User:Void/Discord

Taking over this page for permissions restructuring.

Current roles
Everything else is probably fine, but maybe merge Restricted and Muted, they seem redundant.
 * Admin - Delete unneeded
 * Discord Manager - Delete unneeded or merge with Robyul Manager
 * SRE*ACL - Highest role for access restrictions
 * Stewards*ACL - Keep, possibly relocate, useful for group self-management
 * Manager - Delete unneeded
 * Stewards - Relocate below SRE or re-desingate SRE spaces to use an ACL above Steward
 * SRE - Move above Stewards or re-designate SRE spaces to use an ACL above Steward
 * System Administrators - Keep with similar elevation to SRE
 * MediaWiki Engineers - Determine if group is needed, is there any use for the role, prefer keep for group distinction
 * Puppet users - Determine if group is needed, is there any use for the role, prefer keep for group distinction
 * Robyul Manager - Delete ore merge with Discord Manager
 * Board Members - Move above Stewards or re-designate access to use an ACL above Steward
 * CVT - Fine
 * Code of Conduct Commissioner - Fine
 * Moderator - Delete unneeded

Proposal 1

 * 1) SRE*ACL - Used to delegate all below permissions, does not have admin access
 * 2) Board*ACL - Used to delegate access to certain private channels
 * 3) Sysadmin*ACL - Used to delegate access to certain private channels
 * 4) Stewards*ACL - Used to delegate permissions
 * 5) Stewards
 * 6) SRE
 * 7) System Administrators
 * 8) MediaWiki Engineers
 * 9) Puppet users
 * 10) Board Members
 * 11) CVT
 * 12) Code of Conduct Commissioner
 * 13) All roles including and following Interwiki Administrator will be kept as is save that Restricted and Muted will be merged

Proposal 2

 * 1) SRE*ACL - Used to delegate permissions
 * 2) SRE
 * 3) System Administrators
 * 4) MediaWiki Engineers
 * 5) Puppet users
 * 6) Board Members
 * 7) Stewards*ACL - Used to delegate permissions
 * 8) Stewards
 * 9) CVT
 * 10) Code of Conduct Commissioner
 * 11) All roles including and following Interwiki Administrator will be kept as is save that Restricted and Muted will be merged

Proposal 3

 * 1) SRE*ACL - Used to delegate permissions
 * 2) SRE
 * 3) System Administrators
 * 4) Stewards*ACL - Used to delegate permissions
 * 5) Stewards
 * 6) MediaWiki Engineers
 * 7) Puppet users
 * 8) Board Members
 * 9) CVT
 * 10) Code of Conduct Commissioner
 * 11) All roles including and following Interwiki Administrator will be kept as is save that Restricted and Muted will be merged

Proposal 4

 * 1) Same as proposal 1, but migrate any confidential SRE only and Steward only channels to a separate server

Proposal 5
The idea of this proposal is to eliminate most of the problem with the forced hierarchy of Discord's permission systems. I propose that there maybe be 1 top level *ACL style role that people can apply for (possibly to the community at large, maybe via polls on Discord, TBD) to add/remove users to the other roles only as people's access should actually change. This top-level role would not grant any moderator permissions.

Additionally I propose removing all moderator permissions from all access-based roles (SRE, Stewards, CVT, etc).

Create a new Moderator role granted to anyone that currently inherits moderator permissions from their other roles.

As long as all moderator's get their permission from the same role there is no hierarchy in regards to the permissions.

As an aside, I support moving confidential discussions exclusively to IRC so that channel access via any Discord roles is not an issue and the people that have the top-level ACL role only need to be competent users, not bound to confidentiality.

Ideally, all users would either be part of a group like 'voiced' or 'operator' like IRC so that they are all highlighted together and sysadmins aren't sorted above Stewards in the user list or vice versa. The access-based roles should still exist so that the correct people can be pinged when needed (if using Discord to communicate with a group, and not trying to get Discord moderators).

Edit: As an aside the proposer (NDKilla) doesn't believe that the Moderator role should be exclusively limited to members of SRE, Stewards, or anyone else. Who gets in that role can be determined by the community either as an addition to this proposal or as a separate request, the point of this proposal is to try to eliminate the hierarchy of moderators.
 * I like this idea the best, to be honest. We can have separate role groups for role pings and to perform certain functions within their scope, but Discord Manager and Discord Moderator groups, sorted above all other groups, together with moving private SRE and Steward channels seems the best way forward here. Dmehus (talk) 01:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding server ownership
I'm fine with SPF remaining server owner, but it may be helpful to have someone else around with Admin access who can fix things when needed, as SPF isn't the most active. -- Void  Whispers 00:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion
This is not a vote, but please provide feedback here, and discuss server ownership above. -- Void  Whispers 00:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm proposing the following as the list of requirements I have regarding the server's structure. I'm thinking that perhaps the best resolution for this could be to migrate all private spaces, save for discord administration and any non-strictly confidential channels, should be migrated to a dedicated private server for that group. -- Void  Whispers 00:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Private discussion space for SRE. Only SRE, sysadmins, and board members should have access to this space. No exceptions.
 * Private discussion space for stewards. Possible exception where required for server ownership or any "Administrator" group.
 * That's all fine, but not having Stewards sorted above the publicly displayed, coloured Site Reliability Engineers and MediaWiki Engineers precludes them from taking action, as may be, potentially or theoretically, required. Dmehus (talk) 00:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Definitely, though, I agree that SRE's and Stewards' private discussion channels should be migrated to private Discord servers or group DMs, self-managed by their respective groups. Dmehus (talk) 00:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding moderation permissions, I think the inactivity period is a bit too long. 3 months would probably be better. &mdash;Lakelimbo (talk)&emsp; 02:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Added as, thanks. -- Void  Whispers 02:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Moving forward
Therefore, I am going to put forward the following proposal. -- Void  Whispers 02:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The Miraheze Discord server will no longer have any private spaces (channels) except those required for server moderation, and non-confidential conversation between special groups.
 * Discord moderation abilities will not be delegated based on on-wiki permissions, but will require specific elections. Roles will still exist for on-wiki groups and other delegations, but themselves will not have any special permissions. Instead they will be purely cosmetic and for organizational purposes. Some roles may provide access to private, but not confidential chat venues. Any role requiring a confidential discussion space should instead create one for themselves.

Roles

 * 1) Administrator - Discord administrator, has all permissions.
 * 2) Moderator - Discord moderator, has access only to required moderation tools.
 * 3) Board Member - "Flavor group" - provides no additional permissions.
 * 4) Stewards - "Flavor group"
 * 5) Site Reliability Engineers - "Flavor Group"
 * 6) System Administrators - "Flavor Group"
 * 7) CVT - "Flavor Group"
 * 8) Code of Conduct Commissioner - "Flavor Group"
 * 9) Interwiki Administrator - "Flavor Group"
 * 10) Former System Administrator - "Flavor Group"
 * 11) CSS/JS Support Volunteer - "Flavor Group"
 * 12) Nitro Booster - "Flavor Group"
 * 13) Bots - "Flavor"/organizational role
 * 14) Verified Wiki Users - "Flavor Group"
 * 15) *Assorted bot roles*
 * 16) Muted - Prevented from chatting
 * 17) @everyone

Moderator permissions
View Channels, Manage Channels, Manage Roles, View Audit Log, View Server Insights, Create Invite, Change Nickname, Manage Nicknames, Kick Members, Ban Members, Send Messages, Embed Links, Attach Files, Add Reactions, Use External Emoji, Mention all roles, Manage Messages, Read Message History, Send TTS, Connect, Speak, Video, Voice Activity, Priority Speaker, Mute Members, Deafen Members, Move Members.

Moderator Membership
All current members of discord that have access to moderation powers as a result of their current role will be able to gain access to the proposed Moderator role. However, they will need to pass a confirmation vote with the same level of requirement as being appointed (see below).

Appointment
Users may be nominated or nominate themselves by placing a request on the Community noticeboard. Whenever the nomination is accepted (if nominated by someone else, otherwise submitting the request is immediate acceptation), a request must stay open for at least seven (7) days. During this period anyone from the Community may comment on a candidate's request. This request will be listed in a dedicated channel on Discord for awareness.

A request will be deemed successful when closed by a Discord Administrator after having achieved a 70% support ratio.

Revocation
A moderator may lose their permissions if:


 * a request of no confidence in opened against the user and has a more than 50% support ratio, or
 * the user is inactive from the community for a period of 6 months.

Administrator membership
The initial Discord Administrators will consist of Void and SPF. This may be altered prior to the creation of an RFC, but the selection will be considered final at the start of the RFC, and any other Administrator must be appointed following the criteria below.

Appointment
Users may be nominated or nominate themselves by placing a request on the Community noticeboard. Whenever the nomination is accepted (if nominated by someone else, otherwise submitting the request is immediate acceptation), a request must stay open for at least seven (7) days. During this period anyone from the Community may comment on a candidate's request. This request will be listed in a dedicated channel on Discord for awareness.

A request will be deemed successful when closed by the server owner after having achieved a 70% support ratio.

Revocation
A moderator may lose their permissions if:


 * a request of no confidence in opened against the user and has a more than 50% support ratio, or
 * the user is inactive from the community for a period of 6 months.
 * n.b. Community is defined as the Discord server.

Server Owner
The server owner may be selected at any time by the current owner from any of the current Discord Administrators. The community may retroactively overturn this, or elect a new server owner at any time, through a vote requiring the same appointment criteria as the Administrator position.

Amendments
The following are possible amendments to the proposal above, they are not considered to be bundled together with the proposal, and instead will be required to be voted on as separate items.

Amendment #1
A user is only eligible to vote upon new Discord Moderators/Administrators if they have a verified Discord account.

Amendment #2
Voting shall take place on Discord through a dedicated channel.

Amendment #3
NDKilla nominating themselves to optionally be included among the Administrators as basically up until this discussion they were managing the Discord.

Amendment #4
For the purposes of revocation, the inactivity period is reduced to 3 months instead of 6.

Amendment #5
All current members of discord that have access to moderation powers as a result of their current role will be able to gain access to the proposed Moderator role. No confirmation vote will be required.

Amendment #6
The proposed Discord Administrators list will require a confirmation vote following the RFC.

Amendment #7
For the purposes of the Revocation clause, community is defined as the Discord server.