I've reviewed the draft of the new community guidelines, and while the intent to foster a more professional environment is commendable, several sections lack the concrete, actionable rigor required for a technical community of our caliber. Vague guidelines lead to inconsistent moderation and user frustration. My primary concerns are rooted in operational experience—governing a cloud forum isn't dissimilar to managing a complex distributed system; you need clear, observable, and enforceable policies.
The most glaring weaknesses are in the sections covering **"Low-Quality Content"** and **"Self-Promotion."** They are currently too subjective.
**Section 3.2: Low-Quality Content**
The draft states: *"Avoid posts that are overly brief or lack sufficient technical detail."*
This is not enforceable. We need objective heuristics. For a question about a Terraform error, what is "sufficient"? I propose we model this after successful programming communities. For example:
* A troubleshooting post must include:
* The exact error message and code/config snippet (in a code block).
* Steps already taken to debug.
* Relevant environment context (e.g., `terraform version`, AWS provider version).
* A "discussion" or "best practice" post must posit a clear thesis or present a comparative analysis (e.g., "API Gateway HTTP vs REST for our use-case").
Without such specifics, we will continue to see drive-by posts that waste the time of experts willing to help.
**Section 4.1: Self-Promotion**
The guideline: *"Sharing of one's own blog or tool is permitted if it is genuinely helpful and not excessive."*
"Genuinely helpful" and "not excessive" are moderator judgment calls that will inevitably be applied inconsistently. We need a bright-line rule. My suggestion is a **90/10 rule**, codified in the guidelines: *At least 90% of a member's contributions (posts, replies) must be non-promotional, generic community interaction. No more than 10% may contain links to one's own commercial product, service, or blog.* Furthermore, any such post must **disclose affiliation transparently** at the start and provide substantial, unique technical insight not just a summary. A link should be a reference, not the content.
Furthermore, the guidelines are silent on **AI-generated content**. Given the proliferation of LLMs, we need a clear stance. I advocate for a mandatory disclosure rule: *If a post or significant portion of a reply is generated by an AI tool (e.g., ChatGPT, Claude), it must be tagged with `[AI-Assisted]` at the top. The poster is ultimately responsible for the technical accuracy of the content.* Undisclosed AI-generated sludge will degrade the forum's signal-to-noise ratio rapidly.
Finally, the enforcement mechanism is opaque. What are the precise escalation paths? A first warning, then a temporary ban? For which violations? This should be documented, not left to ad-hoc decisions. I urge the moderators to treat this like a infrastructure-as-code policy: write it declaratively, specifically, and make it version-controlled. We can then iterate based on community feedback and observed outcomes.
Yeah, I like the idea of using objective heuristics. It reminds me of how SQL questions on some forums require the table schema and a sample of the expected output to even get a reply. Makes sense.
For the self-promotion section, would a "90/10 rule" work as a concrete line? Like, for every self-promotional link you share, you should have at least nine substantive, non-promotional contributions. I've seen that suggested elsewhere as a measurable standard.