Re: [gentoo-project] ComRel / disciplinary action reform proposal

[Jeroen Roovers <jer@gentoo.org>]

On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 00:25:34 +0000 (UTC)
"Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" <jmbsvicetto@gentoo.org> wrote:

> The general rule is that you appeal an irc ban to the team
> responsible for the irc channel (#gentoo-ops for #gentoo, ComRel for
> #gentoo-dev and individual project teams for #gentoo-* channels).
> If an appeal of the team decision is needed, it should be either
> directed to the Gentoo Freenode Group Contacts

#gentoo is currently operated under the assumption that appeals go to
ComRel. Users who appeal their ban to the team get a review and as a
rule are advised to contact ComRel if they want to appeal the team
decision. The #gentoo ops team has never used Gentoo Freenode Group
Contacts for appealing #gentoo user bans, so this is a bit novel to
me.

Gentoo Freenode Group Contacts is a (team of?) contacts that represent
Gentoo to Freenode. I don't see how or why they should be directly
involved in channel user management as they aren't now - Gentoo
Freenode Group Contacts simply manage official "#gentoo*" channels and
their ownership with the network.

> (#gentoo-groupcontacts) the people that interact with Freenode and
> can in last resort close a channel or take ownershipt of it or ComRel
> if there was an abuse of power by a Developer. All actions by ComRel
> can be appelead for the Council. ComRel is involved here as this was
> done by UserRel before.

OK, that's channel management, then, and not user-per-channel
management. If you manage a channel under the #gentoo moniker, then you
get to upkeep some minimal standards as you will be regarded as part of
the wider community. Fair enough.

But we don't actually manage cross-channel user management at
all right now. Someone banned on #gentoo can go to #gentoo-chat for
support or ranting or whatever she is allowed to do there (or anywhere
else). This is a Good Thing. We don't need a higher body specifically
for that.

> One thing you mention that might be worth, is having a way to make
> clear that a bugzilla account is "disabled". I don't think we should
> be explicit about an account being banned.

"Disabled" is ambiguous. We currently appear to use "retired" for
developers on bugzilla. I think "inactive" might be a better
generic word for closed bugzilla accounts.

> Appeal bodies are tied to the communication medium. Also, issues
> involving user / developer conflicts, like perceived abuses by
> moderation teams, fall within ComRel (formerly UserRel) purview.

To give an example: the nature of Internet Relay Chat effects that a
corrective measure is usually abrupt and absolute and the object of the
measure will usually feel that power has been abused in some way. This
involves a lot of flaming and venting (usually about the
nature of the operator's motivations for power use, or some inadequately
explained Amendment to some Constitution in some exotic country or
other) in side channels that normally results in the ban being lifted
after a cool-down period that seems appropriate at the time or some 20
days by default. Referring these measures directly to the Council or
even ComRel would make it _more_difficult_for the IRC user to appeal and
wouldn't shorten the cool-down.

Even presenting the information to a higher instance would be an arduous
task and this proposal doesn't say where they would find the resources
to pay for the man power to do all that administrative work, or indeed
how, in detail, that instance could possibly involve itself in the
everyday dealings so directly.

> You don't got to the Supreme Court before going though the appeals
> court.

You didn't mention a legal system in which that statement is true or
praise the merits of such a legal system in particular. I must stress
that it certainly isn't universally true.

> > When multiple teams inflict disciplinary actions on the same user,
> > they can request the Council to consider issuing a cross-channel
> > Gentoo disciplinary action.

This (and what followed) assumes you can positively identify users,
particularly across media, and that's where it all falls down.

> > What do you think?  

My UFO detector says you're trying to concentrate many dispersed powers
(of observation as well as execution) in a single instance. They Live!

> Regards,
> Jorge

Thanks, I agreed with most of that.


     jer