I think there are two separate things I want to address here:

First, agile isn’t a project management methodology, it’s just a set of 4 abstract priorities and 12 abstract principles. It’s very short, you can check it out here:

https://agilemanifesto.org/

Nothing here says that you’re not allowed to write documentation, write down requirements, etc. In fact, the principles encourage you yourself as a software team to create the exact processes and documentation that you need in order to meet your goals.

“Working software over comprehensive documentation” does not mean you aren’t allowed to have documentation, it just means that you should only write documentation if it helps you build working software, rather than writing documentation for the sake of bureaucracy.

“Individuals and interactions over processes and tools” does not mean that you should have no processes, it just means that the individuals in your team should be empowered to collaboratively create whatever processes you need to deliver good software.

Secondly, in terms of practical advice:

1. Talk about this problem with your team. Is it hard for others to figure out where requirements came from? Maybe they already have a good method and can share it with you. If it’s hard for everybody, then propose improvements to your process, for example, propose some type of design document process as part of building any new features
2. There are no perfect answers to the question of “how do I safely make non-trivial changes to systems”, but the general approach is to ensure that:

a. You have metrics about how your system is used.

b. You have automated tests covering any requirements, so that you can feel confident when making changes to one part of the system that it isn’t violating any unrelated requirements.

c. You actually document any confusing parts in the code itself using comments. The most important thing to cover in comments is “why is this logic necessary?” - whenever something is confusing, you need to answer this question with a comment. Otherwise, the system becomes very annoying to change later on.

If you are missing any of the above, then propose to your team that you start doing it ASAP

3. At the end of the day, somebody is responsible for making product decisions. Is it your team? Or maybe some separate product owner? Sometimes, you just need to communicate with whoever is responsible to figure out if any requirements are still relevant, or if they are now safe to change.

It’s not really a bug, it’s just a case where app developers need to update their code to support a small change in the Lemmy API. More details here: https://lemm.ee/post/34259050/12479585

Just a hunch, but is it possible you missed the --recursive flag when cloning the repo?

I think separate report inboxes are needed for the report reasons approach as well. This RFC doesn’t prevent having report reasons, rather I think it brings us closer to that goal.

Thanks for the thoughts!

Why not take this approach to simplify it then?

Yeah, the wording can be changed, I’m adding a note about it to the RFC

But I should be able to mark a report complete if I have dealt with it. Otherwise I’m just going to go to the post and sort it out anyway, so its just adding complexity. Barriers/extra steps to administration is not the way forward here.

I think in this particular case, some barriers are crucial. At the very least, I think we need to have warnings/extra confirmations when an admin wants to resolve a mod report.

I mean, if an admin handles it to the point where mods can’t take any further actions anyway (ban + content removal), then the report is automatically resolved already, so there is no need to manually resolve. OTOH, if an admin handles it in a way that a mod might still want to take additional action (for example, the admin just removes a comment), a mod might still want to take further action (for example, ban the offending user from their community), but if the admin marks the mod report as resolved, the mod will most likely end up never seeing it.

I am legally on the hook for content on my instance, not the moderators, and proposing changes that make it harder to be an admin is a touch annoying.

Btw, I don’t think any admin actions should be made harder, I am only talking about adding barriers to resolving reports which are in mod inboxes, and when I say “resolving reports”, I am literally just talking about marking the report as resolved (this shouldn’t really be a common action for admins - it’s akin to marking DMs as read for other users IMO). I don’t want to limit admins in any way from banning/removing content/anything like that.

No. This is a step backwards in transparency and moderation efforts. Granularity and more options is not always a good thing. If you’ve ever had the misfortune of using Meta’s report functionality you’ll know how overly complex and frustrating their report system is to use with all their “granularity”.

Agreed, I think that’s in line with why I proposed not going that path in the RFC as well.

To add: I would suggest thinking about expanding this to notify the user a report has been dealt with/resolved, optionally including rationale, because that feedback element can sometimes be lacking.

I think that would a good additional feature, but orthogonal to this particular RFC (I mean, neither feature depends on each other)

Thanks for the comment! I think I generally agree with your points, will try to incorporate them into the RFC soon.

While I don’t think admins should be removing things that were reported to the community, they should be able to remove things outside of reports (even without being a mod). Sometimes spam might get reported to the mods, but the admins need to take action. Could the ‘read only’ view add a little warning before action is taken?

To be clear, admins are always able to do that anyway, I’m not proposing any changes to this. I am only proposing to limit the actual “mark as resolved” action, in order to prevent admins from accidentally hiding reports from mods. But I think it makes sense to even not limit this completely, and rather just show a warning when an admin does it - I have updated the RFC.

Btw, for this one:

Sometimes spam might get reported to the mods, but the admins need to take action.

I think it will mostly be OK as long as we allow mods to escalate reports to admins. But still, maybe it is indeed necessary to allow admins to directly resolve mod reports (with an extra UI confirmation step) as well.

Or do you mean reports on content now go to the user’s home instance as well?

Yes, exactly.

Also, there’s no way to report a user to their home instance so long as they don’t post anything in a community on their home instance.

This has been fixed in 0.19 thankfully. But for instances running older versions, what you said is still true.

What exactly is the issue with our admins? If you feel you’ve received some unjustified moderation, feel free to contact me and I can have a look.

I’m not sure what the exact circumstances are here, but something to note is that upgrading to 0.19 will mostly just help with outgoing federation (0.19.2 is much more reliable and robust when delivering activities to other instances compared to 0.18). We will start seeing the full benefits of this as more of the network upgrades.

https://matrix.to/#/#lemmy:matrix.org

FYI to all admins: with the next release of pict-rs, it should be much easier to detect orphaned images, as the pict-rs database will be moved to postgresql. I am planning to build a hashtable of “in-use” images by iterating through all posts and comments by lemm.ee users (+ avatars and banners of course), and then I will iterate through all images in the pict-rs database, and if they are not in the “in-use” hash table, I will purge them.

Of course, Lemmy can be improved to handle this case better as well!

Well, I’m an Estonian citizen at least 😅

Is there a “lost lemmings” community yet? 😄

The problem is that if you have two communities with exactly the same purpose, then that will encourage people to duplicate posts to both. This splits up discussions into two separate comment threads. Also, merging these communities at the client end will cause you to see any duplicated posts twice 😅

Yeah, kind of a strange choice to split like that. Are they intending to start crossposting to both communities?

It helps, but it’s still not a silver bullet. For example, a Lemmy app could contain no malicious code in its open source repository, but malicious code could still be added to a binary release in an app store.

I already made a proposal to improve the default theme, but my issue was closed without any response from the developers.

You’re misinterpreting what happened there - the issue was not closed to shut it down, it was actually converted into a discussion to make it easier to track: https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy-ui/discussions/1503

It wasn’t exactly one specific issue that could be fixed, it was a longer discussion with a bunch of branches. For such things, the discussions format is much more usable.

So it seems that UI is not a priority to Lemmy developers.

I just want to point out that there has been a massive amount of UI improvements in 0.18 and 0.18.1 (just take a look at all the changes by @jsit for example: https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy-ui/pulls?q=is%3Apr+author%3Ajsit+). In addition, new themes are being created directly for the lemmy-ui repo as well, for example: https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy-ui/pull/1682

Hey! I have had a few questions about themes. At this point, I am asking users to apply non-mainlined themes through userscripts - I am wary of taking on extra responsibilities in maintaining compatibility for additional themes. Sorry about that!

But all themes that get added to the main lemmy-ui repo will always be available out of the box on lemm.ee as well. The repo is open to contributions, so you could have a look at that option if that’s something you’re interested in.