SSAFuze
commented
5 years ago I would like to preface this message by saying how I share your desire for a community-based server. The server should be the very best that it can be for all of it's members. But now I would like to address your issue.
I personally feel that you are exaggerating how challenging it is to make a meta issue. For a cybersecurity related server, its not unreasonable to expect many members to have a GitHub account. From there, its's a simple process of creating an issue and laying out your point (which it seems you did with great success).
more an authoritarian system
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this. The staff team has always, and will always, listened to the community and considered their opinions carefully. If I have not understood the point here, please let me know.
I’ve also found that meta issues often take place in channels such as overflow
Again not entirely sure what you mean here. The staff have had conversations with other members in channels on the server which have been very informative. But good discussion has also taken place on this repo, with several key changes being discussed here.
Open up the meta channel
Or as discussed above, if people feel strongly about an issue, they can create an issue/comment on this repo. Much informal discussion also occurs in other channels on the server which can help to more casually work through ideas before hopefully discussing them here.
This would bring the server out of a stasis allowing for a more community-based server.
This is a key point that I do wish to address. Firstly, I would be interested to hear what you mean by the server being in a stasis? It seems like a fairly active and vibrant community to me. You also seem to imply that the community isnt listened to. The entire purpose of this repo is to give a location for focused and meaningful discussion around server related requests and issues. The staff team also listens to members during casual conversations on the server and I can say that we do listen to them. If I may, I would like to throw out an idea I have had to conclude: is a lack of discussion on this repo perhaps a sign that there isnt much change desired rather than it being too complex to use?
Please don't hesitate to query anything that doesn't make sense (I have just sort of spitballed some ideas), and please do let me know what you think of my points. Also, if you think I have failed to address something, let me know. Additionally, I would be interested to get the perspective of others.
NOTE: this message is my own and does not necessarily reflect the view of the entire staff team. I also invite them to provide a contribution if they wish.
Bottersnike
ghost
lightspeedana
A description of the issue:
Currently meta issues are done through github issues which is relayed via a github webhook to the discord. This is a slow feedback loop which could be more efficient. I’ve also found that meta issues often take place in other channels so centralising it would be good.
Proposed Solution:
Open up the meta channel to where "trusted members" can discuss topics. This could lead to a more community-based server due to the increased participation.
Additional Comments:
Removal of the "trusted" role can serve as punishment for abusing the meta channel.