Policy work to clarify (de)federation criteria

Dear all. After a lot of debate, finally we defederated with Meta.

I am not here to discuss the results or it's future impacts, but our own policies and their continuous adjustments. We live in a VUCA world (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VUCA) and what was clear and ok at one time may not be so much now.

During the discussions around to federate or not to federate (imagine this with a skull in hand, Hamlet style) many arguments were put in play: we still don't have reports for moderation, Meta formalized hate speech, their history of moderation non-compliance, the impact of severing those relationships, it's size, etc. (see https://www.loomio.com/d/q9jNanT3/what-moderation-policies-should-social-coop-adopt-toward-fediverse-instances-run-by-for-profit-corporations-, and https://www.loomio.com/d/AZcJK6y2/discussion-support-the-anti-meta-fedi-pact/162 if you have a month to read).

Our bylaws are our agreements and the rules that guide our behavior, but those rules were not clear enough for many people. Some understood the issue as a moderation or resources based fact, others as a political, social or human rights issue, etc.

Thus, after the hurricane passed, I propose that those persons that are interested on this (probably including the CWG, and me for sure) keep the conversation going without hurry, to clarify the motives and objectives of our policies about federation. Eventually those results should go into the process to be consented and clarify/modify our policies.

What do you think?

As always, thanks a lot for the respectful and civilized exchange. It is a pleasure to be part of a community that can discuss with such an insightful and caring way. :)

Eduardo, can you link to the relevant documents you think might need revision? I admit I don't know where the bylaws, for example, are.

@luisvilla1 (I'm not Eduardo, but) https://wiki.social.coop/wiki/Bylaws and https://wiki.social.coop/wiki/Federation_abuse_policy