[gentoo-council] CoC enforcement proposal

[gentoo-council] CoC enforcement proposal

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 420 bytes --]

This is a bit later than I intended because of real life interference, 
but here's some ideas for how to enforce the CoC. It's a little long, 
sorry about that; we can push off the vote again if we don't have a 
majority of people prepared for it by the meeting.

I separated it into problem, conceptual solution, and implementation so 
you can decide which levels you like and which could use tweaking.

Thanks,
Donnie

[-- Attachment #2: coc.txt --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 4380 bytes --]

CoC enforcement proposal
========================

Consider this entire document a draft open to council discussion. I 
appreciate the people on the gentoo-project list who contributed to the 
discussion.

The problem
-----------

My basic philosophy is: compliment in public, criticize in private. One 
of the problems with the proctors last time around was that their 
actions became too public, embarrassing the parties involved. Another 
problem with the proctors was that real action was not taken soon 
enough, and too long was spent talking. Real action in this context 
means that someone is temporarily blocked from posting to the relevant 
forum (mailing lists, IRC, forums), rather than sitting around talking. 
A third problem with the proctors was the difference in interpretation 
of the CoC within the group and with the council. It's particularly 
important to discriminate technical discussions from personal attacks 
and misconduct.

The conceptual solution
-----------------------

A primary focus of CoC enforcement is deterrence from continued 
violation, so permanent action is unnecessary. Thus, what seems 
necessary is a way to take rapid, private, temporary action.

By making initial actions temporary (e.g., 6-12 hours in most cases), 
they can be taken rapidly with little negative consequence in the case 
of a mistake. The goal is to provide developers with a cooling-off 
period but allow them to rejoin the discussion with little loss. Since 
the actions are always private, the only reason other developers will 
learn about them is that either the affected developer or whoever took 
the action (the actor) leaked it. Leaks by the actor will be taken 
seriously as a CoC violation in their own right.

The basic idea behind the time frame is that the longer the action, the 
fewer people who can choose to take it. Perhaps only one or two people 
besides the council could decide to take any action longer than 12 
hours, which would severely impede a developer's ability to participate 
in a discussion.

Whoever's taking action also needs to have a similar interpretation of 
the CoC as the council, which is the problem that came up with the 
proctors. To ensure this, the council will need some kind of role in 
deciding who could take action. But we don't want to fall into the trap 
of writing down every little rule and every possible infraction; that 
just makes it easy to find loopholes.

The implementation
------------------

One way to enable Gentoo to enforce the CoC with these ideas in mind is 
to create a highly selective team with only short-term abilities and a 
strong lead to ensure the team's actions fit the council's CoC 
interpretation. Adhering to the principles mentioned above is what 
discriminates between this group and the former proctors.

All this team's actions must be approved by the lead within a short time 
period or must be reverted. It's expected that many actions will range 
from 6-12 hours, so 12 hours seems like a reasonable time to require 
lead approval. Whenever the lead is unavailable, approval falls to the 
council. (Remember, two council members together can make decisions.)

The lead of this team must gain council approval for any action lasting 
3 or more days. To ensure that this process remains temporary, in no 
case can any action last longer than 7 days. These actions must also be 
forwarded on to devrel or userrel, depending on who's involved, and they 
will consider longer-term suspension or termination.

There is no conflict of interest between the council and this team's 
members, because the council is considered to have the best interests of 
Gentoo in mind. Developers can be members of both groups. The council 
must approve all members of this team, and it must reassess them 
annually to ensure they still interpret the CoC in the same way. 
Furthermore, the team's lead will be appointed by the council to further 
ensure a cohesive CoC interpretation.

It is expected that membership on this team will be highly selective and 
not all who wish to join will make the cut. The team will be limited to 
3 people for a probationary period so we don't get dumped in the deep 
end right away, and it will never have more than 5 people. Once 
appointed by the council, the team lead will choose applicants for the 
rest of the team to forward on for council approval.

Re: [gentoo-council] CoC enforcement proposal

[Ferris McCormick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3764 bytes --]

On Thu, 2007-11-08 at 04:05 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> This is a bit later than I intended because of real life interference, 
> but here's some ideas for how to enforce the CoC. It's a little long, 
> sorry about that; we can push off the vote again if we don't have a 
> majority of people prepared for it by the meeting.
> 
> I separated it into problem, conceptual solution, and implementation so 
> you can decide which levels you like and which could use tweaking.
> 
> Thanks,
> Donnie
Referencing original proposal as circulated.

This is a big step forward, and if we had a binary situation:  either
accept it as written or go back to the drawing board, I'd prefer to
accept.  Thus my comments which follow are best viewed as requests for
clarification or of personal inclination.

1.  Are 3 (or 5) people sufficient to ensure quick reactions to mailing
list questions or IRC?  This is minor, and starting with 3 to put the
process in place and tune it as needed probably works.  My concern is
longer term.  Speaking for myself, for instance, I almost never see
problems on IRC until they are long over, and I suspect this is the case
for most people.  Similarly (usually) with mail.  And I don't think we
want a corps of full-time monitors.

By the way, I don't have an answer to my question, but my guess is that
starting with 3 growing to 5 in practice is probably about right.

2.  As to forums, I've never seen that the forum moderators need any
help with what they are doing.  Actually, in a sense I think the forums
are kind of a model for what you are proposing.

3.  I note that most actions are very short term, so if things are
working as they should, the lead (or council) will seldom or never get
involved in the day to day process.  I think this is a huge plus for
your proposal!

4.  I learned from talking to some of the proctors that they did
generally work in private.  It would be useful perhaps to see how
closely the bulk of what they did conformed to your proposal (as opposed
to how previous Council perceived them).  And of course where it
diverged.  (I am addressing the last sentence of the first paragraph of
the "implementation" section here, and just raising a question.)

5.  Do you perceive the enforcement group as an arm of the Council
rather than as a group of its own?  Previously, the Council did not seem
to know what to do when the Proctors' views of Code of Conduct and
Councils' *individual* views of Code of Conduct seemed to diverge.  This
led to the unusual step of simply eliminating the Proctors.  I rather
doubt that you would find much enthusiasm for working in such an
environment again.  So, what you are proposing probably works for any
given Council (assuming continuing commitment from council to council).
I think my concern is addressed to (a) continuing commitment; (b)
consistency and continuity.  The Gentoo community need to understand the
rules so that they become a part of our culture, so that even with
annual assessment, we should expect evolution rather than catastrophe.

(This was all a bit muddled.  That's sure indication that so are my
thoughts, so take it for what it's worth.)

6.  "Developers can be members of both [Council and Code of Conduct
team]."  This is the one sentence I take exception to.  It's better to
work for more community involvement rather than allow concentration
resulting in personnel wearing multiple hats.

7.  Off the top of my head, why not allow (or require) that one member
of the team be a user but not a developer?  Userrel, all, comments?

Very nice work,
Regards,
Ferris
  
-- 
Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <fmccor@gentoo.org>
Developer, Gentoo Linux (Devrel, Sparc)


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-council] CoC enforcement proposal

[Wernfried Haas]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1477 bytes --]

On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 01:12:37PM +0000, Ferris McCormick wrote:
> 1.  Are 3 (or 5) people sufficient to ensure quick reactions to mailing
> list questions or IRC?  This is minor, and starting with 3 to put the
> process in place and tune it as needed probably works.  My concern is
> longer term.  Speaking for myself, for instance, I almost never see
> problems on IRC until they are long over, and I suspect this is the case
> for most people.  Similarly (usually) with mail.  And I don't think we
> want a corps of full-time monitors.
> 
> By the way, I don't have an answer to my question, but my guess is that
> starting with 3 growing to 5 in practice is probably about right.

I'm not sure if the time frame suggested by Donnie can always be
fulfilled, just think of availability and time zones.

> 2.  As to forums, I've never seen that the forum moderators need any
> help with what they are doing.  Actually, in a sense I think the forums
> are kind of a model for what you are proposing.

Same goes for #gentoo. I also think we should figure out wheter the
people in charge should interfere with the moderators/#gentoo-ops
decisions. I think as long people are misbehaving only on the forums
or #gentoo, it should be up to them, what to do (assuming CoC is
fulfilled).

cheers,
	Wernfried

-- 
Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne (at) gentoo.org
Gentoo Forums - http://forums.gentoo.org
forum-mods (at) gentoo.org
#gentoo-forums (freenode)

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-council] CoC enforcement proposal

[Wernfried Haas]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1093 bytes --]

On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 04:05:07AM -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> By making initial actions temporary (e.g., 6-12 hours in most cases), 
> they can be taken rapidly with little negative consequence in the case 
> of a mistake. The goal is to provide developers with a cooling-off 
> period but allow them to rejoin the discussion with little loss. 

++

> All this team's actions must be approved by the lead within a short time 
> period or must be reverted. It's expected that many actions will range 
> from 6-12 hours, so 12 hours seems like a reasonable time to require 
> lead approval. Whenever the lead is unavailable, approval falls to the 
> council. (Remember, two council members together can make decisions.)

I like the spirit, but I'm not sure how feasible this is in practice.
In any case, they should be documented (e.g. sent to some private list
where the lead and council can see it).

cheers,
	Wernfried

-- 
Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne (at) gentoo.org
Gentoo Forums - http://forums.gentoo.org
forum-mods (at) gentoo.org
#gentoo-forums (freenode)

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-council] CoC enforcement proposal

[Donnie Berkholz]

On 16:42 Thu 08 Nov     , Wernfried Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 04:05:07AM -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > All this team's actions must be approved by the lead within a short time 
> > period or must be reverted. It's expected that many actions will range 
> > from 6-12 hours, so 12 hours seems like a reasonable time to require 
> > lead approval. Whenever the lead is unavailable, approval falls to the 
> > council. (Remember, two council members together can make decisions.)
> 
> I like the spirit, but I'm not sure how feasible this is in practice.
> In any case, they should be documented (e.g. sent to some private list
> where the lead and council can see it).

I agree that it would be infeasible if this were a regular occurrence. 
My and Ferris's expectations were that it would be fairly rare, but we 
don't have much real-world data to bear that out. Could you share some 
from your experience with the original proctors?

Thanks,
Donnie
-- 
gentoo-council@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-council] CoC enforcement proposal

[Wernfried Haas]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2035 bytes --]

On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 10:42:18AM -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On 16:42 Thu 08 Nov     , Wernfried Haas wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 04:05:07AM -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > > All this team's actions must be approved by the lead within a short time 
> > > period or must be reverted. It's expected that many actions will range 
> > > from 6-12 hours, so 12 hours seems like a reasonable time to require 
> > > lead approval. Whenever the lead is unavailable, approval falls to the 
> > > council. (Remember, two council members together can make decisions.)
> > 
> > I like the spirit, but I'm not sure how feasible this is in practice.
> > In any case, they should be documented (e.g. sent to some private list
> > where the lead and council can see it).
> 
> I agree that it would be infeasible if this were a regular occurrence. 
> My and Ferris's expectations were that it would be fairly rare, but we 
> don't have much real-world data to bear that out. Could you share some 
> from your experience with the original proctors?

I think things have cooled down since that time, but during the weeks
the proctors actually were in effect some people were warned to behave
nicely (btw, this is something that i think should also be done in the
new approach before doing nastier stuff).

I'm not sure if they would have been approved within the 12 hour
timeframe. Even if it (hopefully) doesn't happen often, i guess
depending on who the lead is and how regulary he/she checks in, the
time limit may pass. Hence i suggested doing something else
(e.g. sending it to a list for peer review (e.g. other members of the
team and council)).

This is quite similar to how warnings andbans are done on the forums,
we always document who warned/banned whom and for what reason and it
has worked quite well so far there.

HTH & cheers,
	Wernfried

-- 
Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne (at) gentoo.org
Gentoo Forums - http://forums.gentoo.org
forum-mods (at) gentoo.org
#gentoo-forums (freenode)

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-council] CoC enforcement proposal

[Donnie Berkholz]

On 13:12 Thu 08 Nov     , Ferris McCormick wrote:
> This is a big step forward, and if we had a binary situation:  either
> accept it as written or go back to the drawing board, I'd prefer to
> accept.  Thus my comments which follow are best viewed as requests for
> clarification or of personal inclination.

Thanks for your comments, and I want to reiterate that we certainly do 
not have a binary situation in that respect. What we do have is 
preliminary text that could use suggestions like yours. =)

> 1.  Are 3 (or 5) people sufficient to ensure quick reactions to mailing
> list questions or IRC?  This is minor, and starting with 3 to put the
> process in place and tune it as needed probably works.  My concern is
> longer term.  Speaking for myself, for instance, I almost never see
> problems on IRC until they are long over, and I suspect this is the case
> for most people.  Similarly (usually) with mail.  And I don't think we
> want a corps of full-time monitors.

I understand your point, which amne also brought up. My main concerns 
with a larger group are that it will be unable to maintain a cohesive 
view of the CoC and that anyone who feels like it can join up.

> 2.  As to forums, I've never seen that the forum moderators need any
> help with what they are doing.  Actually, in a sense I think the forums
> are kind of a model for what you are proposing.

I agree. Should we add a note that already-moderated places (#gentoo, 
forums) should not need additional moderation?

> 3.  I note that most actions are very short term, so if things are
> working as they should, the lead (or council) will seldom or never get
> involved in the day to day process.  I think this is a huge plus for
> your proposal!

Yep, it's hard to act quickly if you're sitting around waiting for a 
lead in another time zone to show up.

> 4.  I learned from talking to some of the proctors that they did
> generally work in private.  It would be useful perhaps to see how
> closely the bulk of what they did conformed to your proposal (as opposed
> to how previous Council perceived them).  And of course where it
> diverged.  (I am addressing the last sentence of the first paragraph of
> the "implementation" section here, and just raising a question.)

I would also enjoy hearing from past proctors. From my POV, where things 
started to fall apart is where they started (a) acting publicly and (b) 
dropping to the level of those they should be taking action against.

> 5.  Do you perceive the enforcement group as an arm of the Council
> rather than as a group of its own?  Previously, the Council did not seem
> to know what to do when the Proctors' views of Code of Conduct and
> Councils' *individual* views of Code of Conduct seemed to diverge.  This
> led to the unusual step of simply eliminating the Proctors.  I rather
> doubt that you would find much enthusiasm for working in such an
> environment again.  So, what you are proposing probably works for any
> given Council (assuming continuing commitment from council to council).
> I think my concern is addressed to (a) continuing commitment; (b)
> consistency and continuity.  The Gentoo community need to understand the
> rules so that they become a part of our culture, so that even with
> annual assessment, we should expect evolution rather than catastrophe.
> 
> (This was all a bit muddled.  That's sure indication that so are my
> thoughts, so take it for what it's worth.)
> 
> 6.  "Developers can be members of both [Council and Code of Conduct
> team]."  This is the one sentence I take exception to.  It's better to
> work for more community involvement rather than allow concentration
> resulting in personnel wearing multiple hats.

The above two points tie together, in my mind. It would be preferable to 
have at least one of the team members be on council to ensure that their 
CoC interpretations are consistent.

That gave me a new idea. What if the first 2-4 weeks, the team did not 
actually take any action but just documented what its actions would have 
been? This would give people a feeling for what level of enforcement 
we'd see for the CoC.

> 7.  Off the top of my head, why not allow (or require) that one member
> of the team be a user but not a developer?  Userrel, all, comments?

If we could find a user with a strong enough grasp of Gentoo culture, 
I'm open to the idea, and I'd like to make any users adjunct staff 
members during their term to avoid that annoying "Users don't have power 
over me" syndrome.

Thanks,
Donnie
-- 
gentoo-council@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-council] CoC enforcement proposal

[Donnie Berkholz]

On 19:50 Thu 08 Nov     , Wernfried Haas wrote:
> I think things have cooled down since that time, but during the weeks
> the proctors actually were in effect some people were warned to behave
> nicely (btw, this is something that i think should also be done in the
> new approach before doing nastier stuff).

I agree that we shouldn't take drastic actions immediately. I do not 
consider a 6-12 hour silencing in one forum to be drastic, and I think 
actions speak louder than words.

One place I want to stay far away from is getting into an argument with 
the person against whom action was taken.

> I'm not sure if they would have been approved within the 12 hour
> timeframe. Even if it (hopefully) doesn't happen often, i guess
> depending on who the lead is and how regulary he/she checks in, the
> time limit may pass. Hence i suggested doing something else
> (e.g. sending it to a list for peer review (e.g. other members of the
> team and council)).

Sure, it could. That's why there's a backup of (any) two council 
members.

Thanks for your input!

Donnie
-- 
gentoo-council@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-council] CoC enforcement proposal

[Steen Eugen Poulsen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 869 bytes --]

Donnie Berkholz skrev:
> This is a bit later than I intended because of real life interference, 
> but here's some ideas for how to enforce the CoC. It's a little long, 
> sorry about that; we can push off the vote again if we don't have a 
> majority of people prepared for it by the meeting.
> 
> I separated it into problem, conceptual solution, and implementation so 
> you can decide which levels you like and which could use tweaking.

I don't understand this discussion.

Your saying you don't trust the people to do the job so they need to be
looked over the shoulder every second, this creates a bad environment
for them to do the work and is a sure fire way of making things fail,
because you don't use positive psychology.

Just trust them, but require documentation for action taken and setup an
appropriate appeal system to handle the expected mistakes.



[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature, Size: 3412 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-council] CoC enforcement proposal

[Donnie Berkholz]

On 20:23 Thu 08 Nov     , Steen Eugen Poulsen wrote:
> Donnie Berkholz skrev:
> > This is a bit later than I intended because of real life interference, 
> > but here's some ideas for how to enforce the CoC. It's a little long, 
> > sorry about that; we can push off the vote again if we don't have a 
> > majority of people prepared for it by the meeting.
> > 
> > I separated it into problem, conceptual solution, and implementation so 
> > you can decide which levels you like and which could use tweaking.
> 
> I don't understand this discussion.
> 
> Your saying you don't trust the people to do the job so they need to be
> looked over the shoulder every second, this creates a bad environment
> for them to do the work and is a sure fire way of making things fail,
> because you don't use positive psychology.

Could you point me to where I said something about looking over their 
shoulder every second? I didn't think an annual review was that onerous. 
Are you talking about the team's lead approving its major actions? That 
seems like basic management to me.

I'd like to understand your point, but I don't.

Thanks,
Donnie
-- 
gentoo-council@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-council] CoC enforcement proposal

[Ferris McCormick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4411 bytes --]

On Thu, 2007-11-08 at 10:53 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On 13:12 Thu 08 Nov     , Ferris McCormick wrote:
> > This is a big step forward, and if we had a binary situation:  either
> > accept it as written or go back to the drawing board, I'd prefer to
> > accept.  Thus my comments which follow are best viewed as requests for
> > clarification or of personal inclination.
> 
> Thanks for your comments, and I want to reiterate that we certainly do 
> not have a binary situation in that respect. What we do have is 
> preliminary text that could use suggestions like yours. =)
> 
> > 1.  Are 3 (or 5) people sufficient to ensure quick reactions to mailing
> > list questions or IRC?  This is minor, and starting with 3 to put the
> > process in place and tune it as needed probably works.  My concern is
> > longer term.  Speaking for myself, for instance, I almost never see
> > problems on IRC until they are long over, and I suspect this is the case
> > for most people.  Similarly (usually) with mail.  And I don't think we
> > want a corps of full-time monitors.
> 
> I understand your point, which amne also brought up. My main concerns 
> with a larger group are that it will be unable to maintain a cohesive 
> view of the CoC and that anyone who feels like it can join up.
> 
I think I agree that fewer is better in this case.  Starting with 3
growing to 5 probably works about right.  At least until we have some
experience.

> > 2.  As to forums, I've never seen that the forum moderators need any
> > help with what they are doing.  Actually, in a sense I think the forums
> > are kind of a model for what you are proposing.
> 
> I agree. Should we add a note that already-moderated places (#gentoo, 
> forums) should not need additional moderation?
> 

Sure.

--- Snip for economy ---

> > 5.  Do you perceive the enforcement group as an arm of the Council
> > rather than as a group of its own?  Previously, the Council did not seem
> > to know what to do when the Proctors' views of Code of Conduct and
> > Councils' *individual* views of Code of Conduct seemed to diverge.  This
> > led to the unusual step of simply eliminating the Proctors.  I rather
> > doubt that you would find much enthusiasm for working in such an
> > environment again.  So, what you are proposing probably works for any
> > given Council (assuming continuing commitment from council to council).
> > I think my concern is addressed to (a) continuing commitment; (b)
> > consistency and continuity.  The Gentoo community need to understand the
> > rules so that they become a part of our culture, so that even with
> > annual assessment, we should expect evolution rather than catastrophe.
> > 
> > (This was all a bit muddled.  That's sure indication that so are my
> > thoughts, so take it for what it's worth.)
> > 
> > 6.  "Developers can be members of both [Council and Code of Conduct
> > team]."  This is the one sentence I take exception to.  It's better to
> > work for more community involvement rather than allow concentration
> > resulting in personnel wearing multiple hats.
> 
> The above two points tie together, in my mind. It would be preferable to 
> have at least one of the team members be on council to ensure that their 
> CoC interpretations are consistent.
> 

Nice point.  You sold me, assuming agreement among the Council members
(or at least agreement to give great weight to the reading from whoever
is a member of both.)

> That gave me a new idea. What if the first 2-4 weeks, the team did not 
> actually take any action but just documented what its actions would have 
> been? This would give people a feeling for what level of enforcement 
> we'd see for the CoC.
> 

I like this.

> > 7.  Off the top of my head, why not allow (or require) that one member
> > of the team be a user but not a developer?  Userrel, all, comments?
> 
> If we could find a user with a strong enough grasp of Gentoo culture, 
> I'm open to the idea, and I'd like to make any users adjunct staff 
> members during their term to avoid that annoying "Users don't have power 
> over me" syndrome.
> 

I have one or two ideas, and I would guess so does Christel.

> Thanks,
> Donnie

Very positive,
Regards,
Ferris
-- 
Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <fmccor@gentoo.org>
Developer, Gentoo Linux (Devrel, Sparc)


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-council] CoC enforcement proposal

[Luca Barbato]

Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> This is a bit later than I intended because of real life interference, 
> but here's some ideas for how to enforce the CoC. It's a little long, 
> sorry about that; we can push off the vote again if we don't have a 
> majority of people prepared for it by the meeting.
> 
> I separated it into problem, conceptual solution, and implementation so 
> you can decide which levels you like and which could use tweaking.

Overall it's fine, I'll comment later if I find something I'd retouch.

lu

-- 

Luca Barbato

Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero
-- 
gentoo-council@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-council] CoC enforcement proposal

[Donnie Berkholz]

On 11:01 Mon 12 Nov     , Alistair Bush wrote:
> > All this team's actions must be approved by the lead within a short time
> > period or must be reverted. It's expected that many actions will range
> > from 6-12 hours, so 12 hours seems like a reasonable time to require
> > lead approval. Whenever the lead is unavailable, approval falls to the
> > council. (Remember, two council members together can make decisions.)
> 
> My only problem with this is if we are going to impower a team to
> enforce a CoC we should be prepared to stick by them.  Also what is a
> short period of time wrt 12 hours?  So either I would would hope that
> the approval of council with either be removed, or never used.

Maybe this wasn't clear, but I was trying to define the short time 
period as 12 hours. Is that the answer you're looking for?

> I believe that the reassessment of the CoC team should occur more
> frequently to begin with (at least).  i.e. every 6 month's.  As time
> progresses we may find that the period can be extended.  But im sure we
> are all aware of the importance of setting this up correctly to begin with.
> 
> I would therefore like to propose that initially there is something
> along the lines of:-
> 
> * 3 Monthly Meetings, between council and CoC Team Leader where cases
> are reviewed and advice/discussion can occur.  This should be followed
> shortly with a CoC meeting.
> 
> * 6 Monthly Meeting, where council evaluates performance and vision of
> each CoC member.

I'm a little confused by the phrasing, and I'm reading it as "a meeting 
every 3 months" and "a meeting every 6 months" because "3 monthly 
meetings" would mean three meetings every month.

I agree with you that postmortem reviews are important and valuable. At 
the very beginning, I'd suggest even communication than this because of 
the importance of getting things started right -- every council meeting 
for the first three months would not be too much.

Thanks,
Donnie
-- 
gentoo-council@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-council] CoC enforcement proposal

[Alistair Bush]

> All this team's actions must be approved by the lead within a short time
> period or must be reverted. It's expected that many actions will range
> from 6-12 hours, so 12 hours seems like a reasonable time to require
> lead approval. Whenever the lead is unavailable, approval falls to the
> council. (Remember, two council members together can make decisions.)

My only problem with this is if we are going to impower a team to
enforce a CoC we should be prepared to stick by them.  Also what is a
short period of time wrt 12 hours?  So either I would would hope that
the approval of council with either be removed, or never used.

Some solutions to this might be that (just making them up) the CoC team
 members can use there own judgment for actions lasting less than 6
hours, and this cannot be appealed or overruled. Also an offender may
appeal to the CoC Team Leader (or Council) any offense punished by an
action lasting 6-12 hours.  I would like that to be implemented with the
following as well.

> The council
> must approve all members of this team, and it must reassess them
> annually to ensure they still interpret the CoC in the same way.
> Furthermore, the team's lead will be appointed by the council to further
> ensure a cohesive CoC interpretation.

I believe that the reassessment of the CoC team should occur more
frequently to begin with (at least).  i.e. every 6 month's.  As time
progresses we may find that the period can be extended.  But im sure we
are all aware of the importance of setting this up correctly to begin with.

I would therefore like to propose that initially there is something
along the lines of:-

* 3 Monthly Meetings, between council and CoC Team Leader where cases
are reviewed and advice/discussion can occur.  This should be followed
shortly with a CoC meeting.

* 6 Monthly Meeting, where council evaluates performance and vision of
each CoC member.

With a format like this, I hope we can strike a balance between having
an independent CoC team but still have it tightly controlled by the
council.  I would hate for example of have the CoC team overruled
continually by council members for minor issues ( for example, where a <
6 hour cool down was overruled by Council).  But I would also hate for
the council to let the CoC team run a muck.

If we are going to have a CoC team the council (as im sure you are well
aware) should be prepared to stick by their decisions even when there is
disagreement.  This is especially important seeing that the Council has
the final say on who is in the Team.  Why pick them if you are going to
be overruling them all the time.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to some constructive feedback.

Thank you Donnie for the work you have put in so far :)
-- 
gentoo-council@gentoo.org mailing list