From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 73C69139085 for ; Sun, 15 Jan 2017 19:23:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B04A4234034; Sun, 15 Jan 2017 19:23:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C877234032 for ; Sun, 15 Jan 2017 19:23:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pomiot (d202-252.icpnet.pl [109.173.202.252]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mgorny) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DB86C33BF43 for ; Sun, 15 Jan 2017 19:23:55 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2017 20:23:45 +0100 From: =?UTF-8?B?TWljaGHFgiBHw7Nybnk=?= To: Subject: [gentoo-project] ComRel / disciplinary action reform proposal Message-ID: <20170115195209.70d3a748.mgorny@gentoo.org> Organization: Gentoo X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.14.1 (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; boundary="Sig_/NiC_U_bLG.OH/T_upnD1Drc"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: 7662295a-b0ea-471c-98a5-2d211574a698 X-Archives-Hash: 85c1ac9e95ffecf13e028015d3ae6e22 --Sig_/NiC_U_bLG.OH/T_upnD1Drc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello, everyone. Since the things around ComRel seem to have cooled down a bit, I think we can now start a serious discussion on how disciplinary action handling could be improved. While the recent complaints were focused on ComRel, I would like to take a more generic approach since ComRel is not the only body in Gentoo capable of disciplinary action. Therefore, I'd like my proposal to concern all cases of disciplinary action, involving but not limited to: ComRel, QA, Forum moderators, IRC moderators, Wiki admins and any other entity capable of enforcing a disciplinary action against developers and users. Note: throughout the mail 'users' include all people involved on the Gentoo communication channels, developers, users, bystanders and bots alike. Problems -------- 1. Lack of transparency (this seems to be improving but I don't think we have a proper rules for that), that causes two issues: a. Users indirectly involved in disciplinary action are unaware of it which causes unnecessary confusion. Example: user is unaware that a person is banned from Bugzilla, and incorrectly assumes that the developer or user does not wish to reply to him. b. Users presume disciplinary bodies attempt to hide their actions which unnecessary builds tension and accusations. This becomes worse when the subjects of those actions are the only sides speaking upon the matter, and spreading false information. 2. Unclear appeal procedure (outside ComRel). For example, users that get banned on IRC don't have a clear suggestion on where to appeal to a particular decision, or whether there is any appeal possible at all. 3. Lack of supervision. Likewise, most of teams capable of some degree of disciplinary action are not supervised by any other body in Gentoo, some not even indirectly. 4. Lack of cooperation. Most of disciplinary teams in Gentoo operate in complete isolation. Users affected by disciplinary actions sometimes simply switch to another channel and continue their bad behavior under another disciplinary team. In this proposal, I'd like to discuss introducing a few simple rules that would be binding to all teams capable of enforcing a disciplinary actions, and that aim to improve the current situation. My proposed rules are: 1. Secrecy ---------- Due to the nature of disciplinary affairs, the teams involved in performing them are obliged to retain secrecy of the information gathered. This includes both collected material (logs, messages, etc.) and names of the individuals providing them. All the sensitive information involving disciplinary affairs can be *securely* passed only to other members of the disciplinary team involved in the affair and the current Council members, upon legitimate request. The obtained information should also be stored securely. It is only necessary for a single member of the disciplinary team to store the information (or to use a single collective store). The Council members should remove all obtained information after the appeal/audit. It should be noted that an unauthorized disclosure of sensitive information by any party involved would be a base for a strong disciplinary action. Rationale: a. The collected material sometimes contains various bits of private information whose disclosure is completely unnecessary and would only unnecessarily violate individual's privacy. Gentoo ought to respect privacy of users, and do not invade it without necessity. b. Publishing names of individuals involved in a disciplinary action could encourage the subjects to seek revenge. While keeping them secret often does not prevent it (or even worse, causes the individuals to seek revenge on larger group of people), we ought not to encourage it. 2. Transparency --------------- Any disciplinary action should be announced by the team in a manner specific to the appropriate media where the measure applies. The announcement should be visible to all users of that media, and contains: - the name of the user to whom the measure applies, - the description and length of the measure applied. For example, a ban on a mailing list could be announced to the mailing list in question. A ban on Bugzilla could involve adding appropriate note to the user's name, so that all other users see that he can't respond at the time. A ban on IRC could be stored e.g. on wiki page, or noted on a bug. Furthermore, any disciplinary action must be reported to the Council. The reporting is done through a bug that is opened at the first disciplinary measure inflicted on a user, and reused at any following measures. It should contain the information listed above, and have the Council in CC. No private information should be ever included in the bug. Rationale: a. As noted above, the disciplinary measure often affect more users than the subject of the action. It is therefore most advisable to notice them of the action (i.e. that they can't expect the particular user to reply) and their length, while protecting as much privacy as possible. b. It is also beneficial for the subject of the action to have a publicly visible note of the measure applied, and clear statement of its length. c. Opening bugs for all disciplinary actions helps teams keep track of them and their durations, note repeated offenders and finally report all actions to the Council for auditing purposes. 3. Appeal --------- All disciplinary decisions (both actions and refusals to perform action) can be appealed to the Council. In this case, the disciplinary team is obliged to securely pass all material collected to the Council. The Council can either support, modify or dismiss the decision entirely. There is no further appeal. It should be noted that the disciplinary actions must not prevent the appeal from being filed. Rationale: a. Having a single body to handle all appeals makes the procedures simpler to our users and more consistent. This also guarantees that all measures can be appealed exactly once, and no channels are privileged. b. The Council is currently the highest body elected by Gentoo developers with the trust of being able to handle appeals from ComRel decisions. It seems reasonable to extend that to all disciplinary decisions in Gentoo. 4. Supervision -------------- At the same time, Council is assumed to supervise all disciplinary affairs in Gentoo. As noted in 2., all decisions made are reported to the Council for auditing. Those reports combined with appeals should allow the Council to notice any suspicious behavior from particular disciplinary teams. For the necessity of audit, the disciplinary teams should retain all material supporting their disciplinary audit in a secure manner, throughout the time of the disciplinary action and at least half a year past it. The Council can request all this information to audit the behavior of a particular team and/or its member. Rationale: a. Having a proper auditing procedure in place is necessary to improve the trust our users put in our disciplinary teams. It should discourage any members of our disciplinary teams from attempting to abuse their privileges, and help discover that quickly if it actually happens. b. The necessity of storing information supporting disciplinary decisions is helpful both for the purpose of auditing as well as for (potentially late) appeals. Keeping old information is necessary to support stronger decisions made for repeat offenders. 5. Cooperation -------------- While it is not strictly necessary for different disciplinary teams to cooperate, in some cases it could be useful to handle troublemakers more efficiently across different channels. Since all disciplinary actions are published, a team may notice that another team has enforced a disciplinary action on their user. This could be used as a suggestion that the user is a potential troublemaker but the team must collect the evidence of wrongdoing in their own channel before enforcing any action. It should be noted that disciplinary teams are not allowed to exchange private information. When multiple teams inflict disciplinary actions on the same user, they can request the Council to consider issuing a cross-channel Gentoo disciplinary action. In this case, the Council requests material from all involved teams (alike when auditing) and may request a consistent disciplinary action from all disciplinary teams in Gentoo. Rationale: a. Under normal circumstances, a bad behavior on one communication channel should not prevent the user from contributing on another. However, we should have a more efficient procedure to handle the case when user is a repeating troublemaker and moves from one channel to another. b. Preventing information exchange serves the purpose of protecting users' privacy. The access to sensitive information should be restricted as narrowly as possible. Disciplinary teams should perform decisions autonomously to prevent corruption of one team resulting in unnecessary actions from another. Migration --------- It would seem unreasonable to request all disciplinary teams to either report all their past decisions right now, or to lift them immediately. However, if this policy is accepted, all teams would be obliged to follow it for any further decisions. It would also be recommended for teams to appropriate update at least recent decisions or those that are brought up again (e.g. via appeal or repeat offense). What do you think? --=20 Best regards, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny --Sig_/NiC_U_bLG.OH/T_upnD1Drc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQKTBAEBCgB9FiEEbbsHzE8NrQbqCv5BsHoa6u+0Rk4FAlh7zEFfFIAAAAAALgAo aXNzdWVyLWZwckBub3RhdGlvbnMub3BlbnBncC5maWZ0aGhvcnNlbWFuLm5ldDZE QkIwN0NDNEYwREFEMDZFQTBBRkU0MUIwN0ExQUVBRUZCNDQ2NEUACgkQsHoa6u+0 Rk4KsBAAg5XD2keLDISSov+1Svaha1Uq8sfZex2vRKxbZtemO7XpkeN5k7YoiF4c 6QEy1wUjYVE+6P9cUGCwFCCZmFEAe71WqHg73viT94KPg9wkG8qARNNRv8NHxllB p05DegJlRsg2t5xj5/IilUkuIE4nneuW0IgXf5JpKbp9thrQkqr5LXfnePLoeP4a WZbEprC4i/+YFzuUupNutgsIh/0k+Lv1kNgX7WkDWKbES2NkzZiY2lnAilcr9tex e3vjfg0n1V7IpSV9bjK6YRbCZAdXM0sF8HBUUY8f7xjrZ8+/E6DaeBCmzU6hOFbA zsOzoUSMWpGoRlIKVvncRRoM14DhIveHFijXZck63/BlhWzb9Rarmeh3zlv+mSg7 aZl22C6eKpkg9Ph66EO8E5Vjp5I+XS6F/vWAVDYmjBR89rem/0MsoCpbs6wY3Tdh EzO8iLv6WY4A1nqLIe/Mp7SES38xqaUa78MD9q8whIekRLrnEB64aTKVncnFDfpc J3yHeRb8ohk4T6QCxgV+aaCQgMRJ0JJ2ksT3NqAVI1CWTqsDKrWlXKNrZ0D/1XMt CIl6Yb2t1w+VLXqmBA552oH1OPrUdwAxB1qnBDSqOL63TBK0MwQYZxTJvI5QiJDx 5T6t0QwWuWjX7q2FQufiC12VwP4+r6+7DHOBbMSoveftI+saEH4= =rsg/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/NiC_U_bLG.OH/T_upnD1Drc--