Difference between revisions of "Safety/2020-05-20"

[[Wiki.trustroots.org]] is an independent wiki with information for people who are actively exchanging hospitality.
Jump to: navigation, search
(No difference)

Revision as of 13:29, 25 May 2020

Trustroots Safety Team Meeting

Date: 2020-05-20 20:00 UTC+2 / CEST Facilitator: Philipp Participants: Philipp, Dario, Ludo


  • check-ins
  • feedback about last week
  • follow-ups on topics from last meeting?
    • non-discriminative behavior in rules
      • RULES: we said we wanted to add something in order to be explicit about not tolerating objectionable content or abusive users
      • (phrasing about discrimination)
    • value priorities
    • sexual abuse case
    • open ticket: https://trustroots.zendesk.com/agent/tickets/3122 (Dario?)
  • pick facilitator for next meeting
  • random question

let’s try to get everything done within one hour

Feedback about last week

  • Philipp:
    • felt unsecure in the beginning how to handle support requests, but now there is a lot going on and feels like there’s a lot he can do
    • forwarded all the newsletter mails to Julien
    • Noahs notes on open requests were quite helpful
    • idea: have a shared support ticket answering session
  • Ludo:
    • felt much more effective through Noah’s notes
    • feels less effective than old support team, but that’s ok
    • experienced progress over the last week
  • Dario:
    • cool that there are new team members
    • don’t be afraid to ask questions and go ahead and answer!
    • most active week on trustroots ever in terms of signups and support traffic
    • super interesting times, happy about the timing: team growth and couchsurfing spike -> we can handle this well

Follow-ups from last week’s session

  • new aspect: you ‘sign’ those rules when you sign up
  • other possible places for more elaborate discussion about our stance towards racism and discrimination: blog post?
  • maybe it’s better to have very short and simple rules
  • Mikaels change to rules: “Be friendly and know when to stop messaging someone. We have no tolerance for objectionable content or abusive users.”
  • let’s create a pad and work there on the rules after the call

Rules for support team

  • Ludo suggests to give ourself a code we follow while we do our work
  • Dario: +1; on the github safety wiki they have started a rule book, until now only about creep profiles: https://github.com/Trustroots/safety/wiki/Rules-for-report-cases should be extended!
  • Dario: for now it’s ok as an internal thing, but in the future we could be transparent and make it public?
  • do that alongside real cases as an example

Sexual abuse case

  • Ludo is going to discuss the message draft with Noah (and Philipp?) on slack
  • we’ll see how it goes when the message is sent to reporting person
  • Philipp: aim to solve until next week maybe? Dario: But the new stuff is a lot less serios.


  • reporting person ok to reach out to reported person
  • Dario reached out to the reported person -> waiting for reply
  • Dario: it’s standard procedure

Value priorities

move to next call! Philipp wrote on Slack:

Maybe we could try to put up a priorities list of values to guide us in decisions or make things clearer? Something in the like of (probably missed a lot): * keep trustroots community a safe space * protect vulnerable members * uncover problems * be transparent * be consistent in decisions * offer TR members the possibility to reflect their attitude


Dario: “if you could only travel once more, to where and to who would it be?”

Sexual abuse case take 2

  • Noah: explain to them in a reassuring way why we want to read their message.
  • Noah: you reported xy. Our standard policy is to ask for permission
  • Ludo: confused: message exchange 5y ago + message exchange with same users around the time they report came in
  • whatever we do with a motivation to protect the socalled victim. reporting user with their past and recorded person using their trustroots account.
  • Ludo: situation might be delicate with police case. We didn’t want to expose reporting person
  • Noah: if to decide: making victim feel we don’t believe them is a lot worse than suspending reported person for no reason
  • proposal: transparently message reported person -> he got reported (we won’t say by whom or for what) and that their account got suspended.
    • either they don’t respond
    • or they respond. What do we do then?
  • besides their (linked) CS account got removed
  • Noah is contacting BW if they received a report and how they are handling it

Next meeting

Next Date: 2020-05-27 20:00 UTC+2 / CEST but check with Noah! Next Facilitator: Ludo