Managing who has direct access to our social media accounts

@steiner created this ticket for us to discuss. Based on feedback from Justin, I’m bringing it to Discussion to get input from Mindshare and the wider community.

Current Status

Basically, we have several social media accounts for Fedora, but the Marketing Team only has so much access to those accounts to post regularly. I have direct access to the Mastodon account, but everything else is under other folks.

These are the socials we’d like access to and who seems to currently have access based on the social media wiki page.

Proposal

Here are two ideas, but it’s possible we end up with a mix of both depending on the response we hear back.

Option 1: Work with people who currently have access to post regularly

I would like to get feedback on how available the current account access holders may be to help the Marketing Team. If we can get at least one person from each platform to commit to being available to publish at least one post every 1-2 weeks, I think we can make that work. The process would be to prepare social media posts in our Gitlab like we already do and ping the person when we have something ready for them to push out. Of course they could be more involved than that, and we would welcome it!

As of now, we have access to the Mastodon and we will soon have access to the LinkedIn thanks to Justin reaching out to LinkedIn directly. We’re missing consistent access to the Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook.

I have one extra note for the Twitter account. We can make due with posting every week or so, but that’s the platform where we can get away with near daily posts. Our experiment with Mastodon has shown how much material for content there is within the project, so ideally we would like to post more often to Twitter than to the other platforms. It’s an especially easy platform to start putting to work because we would just reuse our Mastodon posts with slight modifications where needed. However, any access to the Twitter would be a good start.

Option 2: Figure out how to decide who else can get access to accounts

Assuming we can’t get volunteers to liaise for the accounts, it would be nice for some of the folks on the team to have access to the accounts. Each individual member doesn’t need access to all the accounts, but if it least we can have enough access to cover all our bases, that would be enough.

Follow up question: how do we decide who to give access to? The Fedora brand is very important for reasons that I think are obvious. It’s a lot of responsibility to share with people.

Based on a marketing meeting we had in December, Justin suggested for us to nominate people to the Mindshare Committee and they would be the ones who decide. I like that idea and I have no other requirements other than that the people be committed to being responsive to the Marketing Team with our requests. But more than that, I have no idea how to come up with requirements for who is a contributor we feel comfortable with. So I sheepishly leave this problem for Mindshare to solve. :sweat_smile:

If anyone has any ideas or input, please share! Since the Marketing Team has pivoted to being mostly focused on leveraging social media for Fedora, this has been the main blocker for us doing more for the project. While we wait for more channels to open up for us, we’ll keep our heads down focusing on the Mastodon account.

1 Like

Speaking for myself, taking something pre-generated is something doable for me to post on the channels where I have access. However, I’d prefer to delegate access to others who are coming up with the source, and if my feedback or approval were needed, then I could weigh in as needed.

Thanks to Tweetdeck, Twitter is an easy one for us to manage access to. We can give others access to the @fedora and @fedoracommunity Twitter accounts through their personal Twitter accounts, without having to share passwords.

Instagram requires sharing a password, so this one needs to be handled more delicately. However, if we have a trusted member of the Social Media Admin Team willing to handle Instagram, we can coordinate that one as needed.

Facebook is an odd one though. I don’t have a Facebook account but I think we have folks either at Red Hat or in the community who could help us manage access.

I think one filter we could use is how someone becomes a formal member of the Marketing Team. Then it would make a process for the Mindshare Committee easier, so instead of validating someone as worthy or not, it would be easier to understand the nominee’s contributions as an existing contributor to the Marketing Team. Then we could add them to the Fedora Social Media Admin Team where they receive access.

2 Likes

Along these lines… You should probably remove me from access to these accounts. While still a very happy Fedora user, I rarely get the chance to contribute in any substantial way to marketing or mindshare activities. Trimming me out as “inactive” should help you have a more accurate estimate of coverage across accounts. Thank you for the reminder!

@pfrields Acknowledged! I’ve made your request as well as for other group sponsors here:

https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/11088

Thanks @jflory7 !

Ok, thanks for being a backup just in case!

Touché. I though about this a little and this is a first draft of what we can consider. Formal members of the Marketing Team should meet the following requirements.

  1. Been in the Fedora Project for x amount of time.
  2. Been in the Marketing Team for x amount of time.

Then, when it comes to consideration for being added to the social media access group by the Mindshare Committee, you have the next requirements.

  1. Fill a need for coverage on targeted platforms.
  2. Be nominated by a member of the Marketing Team OR based on a vote by team members.

My thinking behind only adding folks to have access when there’s a need is to not have more people with access… than we needed. We minimize exposure that way. The sweet spot would probably be 2-3 people who have access and they can overlap between the platforms. I would expect the FCAIC, Project Leader, and Program Manager to also have access even though they won’t be as involved as a fail-safe.

I think this is a fine rough framework? Still undecided on the amount of time for each of those criteria. On one end I want to have a bar that’s high enough to protect the brand but not so high that we’re gate-keeping. Ideally the folks who have this access have been around the project for a little, understand what Fedora is about, and participate in the community. If they get the spirit of Fedora, that will help a ton not just for trustworthiness, but also for content and curation.

Perhaps this could be a number of releases.

Especially for teams where a “contribution” is not clearly measured (e.g. a code commit or package built), I find team-driven nominations to work very well. For example, an existing member of the Marketing Team could nominate someone else to become a member, and the existing Marketing Team members take a vote on the nomination.

This is similar to how the DEI Team does it, and this model has worked well for us.

Agreed. I think having a handful of active folks for each platform is a better approach than adding everyone to every platform. For example, I typically would do more with Twitter than Instagram because it is my personal preference. I use Twitter with my own account but I don’t really use Instagram personally.

One other filter to consider is membership in another team or group. I agree that knowledge about other parts of Fedora will help a lot, plus if someone has background in some other part of the project, they can likely represent that context in what we promote and give visibility to.

I’m unsure about going with number of releases because someone could have started with the project from one release party and seen their second release 6 months later.

What about this:

  1. To join the marketing team, you need to have been involved in the project for 3 months and actively interacting with the marketing team for at least 1 month. Then someone would nominate you to join the formal team, and if it passes you’re in.
  2. To become a member of the social media group, you need to have been involved for 12 months and a member of the marketing team for at least 3 months (this amount for length of time in the marketing team is somewhat arbitrary). Then someone from the marketing team would nominate you to the Mindshare Committee and they vote.
  3. You could of course be contributing to other areas of the project that are not just marketing. There is no conflict.
  4. You could contribute to the marketing team, and as long as you hang around for a month and want it, you will likely be voted into the team.

Does this work? I originally set the bar for joining the team at 6 months to try to catch at least one release cycle, but I think that’s too much. I’m thinking of the potential contributor asking about joining the marketing team after a release party and how they would feel at being told that they won’t be a formal member of the team for at least 6 months. A 1 month “probationary” period would probably be enough to catch folks who may not be interested in the long-term. A period of 12 months seems good for access to official social media, though.

Love that!

@joseph This seems like a good start, although one question I foresee you getting is what “involved in the project” means. One thing I am cautious about is that requiring a fixed period of involvement without specifying what involvement means will result in some people not being selected, who would actually be a great fit.

Personally, I am more in favor of an individual Marketing Team member deciding what constitutes involvement and participation, and making that decision themselves by putting forward a nomination for the team to discuss.

Does this make sense?

(Also, another thing to emphasize is that extra steps for gaining access to social media doesn’t mean people can’t contribute ideas, just that we aren’t handing out passwords freely! Our credentials are not open source. :laughing:)