April 2016

Agenda

  1. Can we ask for someone in the room to edit in a relevant tag on a question so that it can be single-handedly closed with the hammer?
  2. Should we leave a comment under posts that were closed as a result of a cv-pls in order to let the OP know how to improve their question? If so on which close reasons?
  3. Does the room/group need to be renamed to reflect the fact that it doesn't focus only on "Close" activity?
  4. Are the activities of the room effective at meeting its goals?
  5. What can / should we do to make our votes more effective?
  6. Are we okay with having a lot of members being privileged Smokey users? Should only RO be privileged in SOCVR and let members be privileged in Charcoal HQ if they really want to?
  7. Should we have an SOCVR Code of Conduct that all regulars are expected to follow, not only in SOCVR but also on SO / MSO / chat / any and all SE places?
  8. Creating editing events as well as close events (specially while burnating tags); if so, coordination of edits needs to be discussed.
  9. On smoke detector message where a post only needs to be edited, find a rule to avoid conflicting edits attempts. Example: we post a chat message "I will edit" or similar.
  10. Should we move the burnination process to a meta question?
  11. Should burnination be officially undertaken by SOCVR or should a new "Burninators" specialized room handle it?

Resolutions

1. Can we ask for someone in the room to edit in a relevant tag on a question so that it can be single-handedly closed with the hammer?

we will not allow tag-editing for handing off to gold badge holders.

2. Should we leave a comment under posts that were closed as a result of a cv-pls in order to let the OP know how to improve their question? If so on which close reasons?

No, we should not leave comments under posts that were cv-plsed. It is left up to the user making the request.

3. Does the room/group need to be renamed to reflect the fact that it doesn't focus only on "Close" activity?

Postponed to next meeting

4. Are the activities of the room effective at meeting its goals?

So yes I'd say we see on a daily basis that we are effective at meeting our goals

5. What can / should we do to make our votes more effective?

We need a diverse toolset, based on each others need, we need to evaluate what we have now, improve them in the next few months and re-visit this topic the next meeting.

6. Are we okay with having a lot of members being privileged Smokey users? Should only RO be privileged in SOCVR and let members be privileged in Charcoal HQ if they really want to?

we are fine with members of SOCVR having permissions to run the bot. RO's will monitor for bot misuse and anyone can bring up odd behavior to the Charcoal room.

7. Should we have an SOCVR Code of Conduct that all regulars are expected to follow, not only in SOCVR but also on SO / MSO / chat / any and all SE places?

If SO rules aren't good enough, let's fix the SO rules.

8. Creating editing events as well as close events (specially while burnating tags); if so, coordination of edits needs to be discussed.

Is there any disagreement to having trial edit events? spoiler: No

9. On smoke detector message where a post only needs to be edited, find a rule to avoid conflicting edits attempts. Example: we post a chat message "I will edit" or similar.

I think this should be the same as comments when cv-plsing. Not required or officially encouraged, but a "nice to do".

10. Should we move the burnination process to a meta question?

I made a start here: meta.stackoverflow.com/a/…

11. Should burnination be officially undertaken by SOCVR or should a new "Burninators" specialized room handle it?

I think burninations should not be chatroom dependent. If a chat room wants to donate it's resources, that's great. A meta answer should be the main hub for burnination coordination.