Providing Confidential Feedback on CWG Policy and Process

This is not the best solution for making people feel safe in these issue queues. While some folks may want to provide anonymous feedback, as community members, we have the right to feel safe in these threads and on this site - which is the crux of the Drupal community. I do not think it would be an outrageous ask that the person whose issue sparked much of this discussion refrain from posting in these issues in order to allow the rest of the community to feel more welcome.

I do think it's important to have an anonymous option, and I think the solution you propose above works well for those who want it.

That said, I agree with aburke626 above--these threads are the place where work happens and I'd like to find ways to make them safe(r) for public participation. I don't think we as a community want d.o to be seen as a place where only the thick-skinned survive.

I feel super queasy reading a discussion where a person who deliberately worked to detonate the Drupal community then steps in to try to define how the Drupal community should be governed going forward. That is incredibly off-putting, creating an environment that feels very unsafe. Putting the onus on the large number of people affected by this person's actions—in essence asking us to communicate privately so that our voices are no longer visible—seems very, very backwards.

Echoing the above, in list form.

1. We do a way for people to share thoughts completely anonymously. We already have that - they can email the CWG at any time. However, there's no public accountability for the CWG to act on that feedback or even acknowledge it's receipt.

1a. We need a way for people to share thoughts anonymously that provides an equivalent level of transparency and accountability that is provided by posting in the issue queues.

2. We need the issue queues to be safe(r).

For me, one of the most disappointing aspects of the events that unfolded over the spring/summer was that there seemed to be little support coming from the CWG/Drupal leadership regarding the people who were being actively harassed, doxxed, and attacked both within and outside the community. I think it left a feeling of vulnerability that Drupal leadership doesn't have the backs of the people who are on the front lines and trying to make Drupal a more diverse and inclusive space.

Yes, anonymity is important; but more importantly, people need to feel that they're not risking their family members being called out on Twitter or that vicious troll accounts aren't being run by community members.

To hrodrig's point, community members who spoke out _were_ being targeted this summer. And much of that targeting was being done by community members.

Addressing that member behavior is a thread of it's own, to be sure, but very illustrative of the reason that we need to both accept anonymous feedback, and make a shift in the way community dissent is handled.

It's also likely to be people that feel comfortable using the issues queue or people that have agency that will create public issues - and this isn't everyone by any any means. One option would be for the CWG to create issues as they arise in the community and then ask people to comment on them - if the intent of transparency and openness is a fixed one. It's often easier to contribute to a conversation than be the first to start one.

I think about the recent issue with the survey to against Megan and Dries, a community member was very deliberately targetted and deceived into promoting and supporting a survey in support that was then changed. I'm not sure if this was ever officially reported. These forms of agression and targetted harassment really all need to be documented so that patterns can be seen and issues picked up quickly before they escalate.

@ok_lyndsey - I'm trying to understand if you are talking about feedback about how we work in general, which we do try to post in this issue queue or actual community issues, which are always managed in private between the concerned parties.

Process issues, discussing how we work in general (policy, process) - this queue.

Issues brought to our attention, discussing individuals - private queue.