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 1744B138334 for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 23:21:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id CA9A9E0AD3; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 23:21:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ot1-x333.google.com (mail-ot1-x333.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::333]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8C935E09CE for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 23:21:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ot1-x333.google.com with SMTP id v23so4419705otk.9 for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 15:21:45 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=mXp2IHWeJ0Or/t5ZNz+GhOJt99gqB4KrTc0WVeDQfig=; b=TsK7IBM059FQLhBrNI02Ex+FRWI263+f5I4cjF65J9iaACdmH/JG4w3fQ6beTIx7bl ODqZay8uBxPS3ebW5xRyQfh7duOpPqgR5Dr0c2VXNnztV70klCtmkDb67qwkiQi3zPpw Jxn8z4gyk9Zv93Nh+bYQ7b5naZYBGQGgtmU9EJhWn5Uc3rc78bCJZN4Q/A14aHP2JARm NDukVSskQtpMGx7BPnImwvZ51ebkIc9w+izNAiZiUUwAXZk4J60sZtSycYpkraEPvHoX Dv6VuFJecWfIKXsqCnBdqrPi42htnL319lc22fFZZPtg8KjyktnFYCbYt89DvlsiyO33 pA7w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=mXp2IHWeJ0Or/t5ZNz+GhOJt99gqB4KrTc0WVeDQfig=; b=UClHVuEYAw8NDmwYnHyDm1QvA0K4rQ9ZsoOrBjUBytr0DbEQI3U9uqXAFOieOOIETc 8cG7BWbHwuDxZsDkb+vganrUNADFkKjYyq04VMLcdApJRAmTUsngygSK6awhPqNmcqw3 fx8I25LkbxuGV8Zkx2o6tiJBkepImQXrXEia5slpGb1HHb74rpXzYxBzC/K8dnAsEGKe NWqeaovxH+3WI5e9okd2NPP/odr+IvfqVwTvIQdt/Kl1sF4xuPokXkDYE771ixNxlAXn L3pkOP/uoOqAjf8nci1Z+vqk7/hzWJNaihHupR8Okzn2cPhmmcGgyJJEL0ayMJWEdjsr rdXA== X-Gm-Message-State: AJcUukfPx0qU78uBzD5dicAxqZYktSZU0ORGLdUBBVZN4nfHiGE7Q96w LhCfdgJBycWbxifJ/Xa6T0egvJQbtN9pKC2Uy9M5sZXB X-Google-Smtp-Source: ALg8bN645MYX7noPqdVGPdxoC4nHKrrzqqsgz9S3LOtNXvY38j4eahkRzWDfzZV3jSD3U/R6ivP03VsJa3AGrJg+ddI= X-Received: by 2002:a9d:7c86:: with SMTP id q6mr29289700otn.257.1548976903999; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 15:21:43 -0800 (PST) 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 X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <2beb3305-396f-8b10-e2a1-4008d8505fa9@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: From: Raymond Jennings Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2019 15:21:07 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Appeals of Moderation Decisions To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000020d8260580c94a91" X-Archives-Salt: 3888fdcd-d3b0-4464-bbac-cdc50addaf39 X-Archives-Hash: f9cc98deda77db87ca230ead2f26f72d --00000000000020d8260580c94a91 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 11:27 AM Rich Freeman wrote: > On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 2:11 PM Rich Freeman wrote: > > > > Can Council define an appeals process for appeals of moderation > > decisions in general for any official Gentoo communications media? I > > think we have this for mailing lists, as Proctors is the only real > > moderation there and Proctors does have an appeals process. I think > > IRC and Forums are the areas with gaps - to the extent that either has > > an appeals process I can't find it documented anywhere (I welcome > > leads in both areas to comment). > > > > Proctors already has a defined appeals process. Minor actions like > warnings or short bans are final, and longer bans are appealable to > Comrel. IMO this is a reasonable balance. > > To the extent that either IRC or Forums formally has a process for > short-term bans (<1wk)/etc I would suggest those also be > non-appealable beyond any internal process these teams have. > > For appeals beyond this I suggest that Comrel also be the point of > appeal. I think Proctors could also work, but it raises the question > of bureaucracy as in theory an IRC op might make a decision, then > Proctors takes an appeal, then Comrel takes an appeal, and then maybe > even Council takes an appeal. That is a lot of appeals. > My two cents: Would there be any merit for the imposition of additional sanctions for abuse of process if an appeal is determined to be frivolous? This might mitigate any concern about excessive bureaucracy. > Very long-term it might make sense to try to better harmonize how we > do moderation on all these different media, but I think that is really > a separate issue, and doesn't need to be settled right away. I think > that the absence of ANY appeals process in the interim is more of an > issue, as it does leave people who are subject to what might be one > person's decision no real access to due process. Even if all the > moderators are doing a perfect job there should be a process. > > I'd encourage IRC ops or Forums mods to chime in with their thoughts > here... > > -- > Rich > > --00000000000020d8260580c94a91 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 11:27 AM Rich Fre= eman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote= :
On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 2:11 PM Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote: >
> Can Council define an appeals process for appeals of moderation
> decisions in general for any official Gentoo communications media?=C2= =A0 I
> think we have this for mailing lists, as Proctors is the only real
> moderation there and Proctors does have an appeals process.=C2=A0 I th= ink
> IRC and Forums are the areas with gaps - to the extent that either has=
> an appeals process I can't find it documented anywhere (I welcome<= br> > leads in both areas to comment).
>

Proctors already has a defined appeals process.=C2=A0 Minor actions like warnings or short bans are final, and longer bans are appealable to
Comrel.=C2=A0 IMO this is a reasonable balance.

To the extent that either IRC or Forums formally has a process for
short-term bans (<1wk)/etc I would suggest those also be
non-appealable beyond any internal process these teams have.

For appeals beyond this I suggest that Comrel also be the point of
appeal.=C2=A0 I think Proctors could also work, but it raises the question<= br> of bureaucracy as in theory an IRC op might make a decision, then
Proctors takes an appeal, then Comrel takes an appeal, and then maybe
even Council takes an appeal.=C2=A0 That is a lot of appeals.

My two cents:

Would there be any = merit for the imposition of additional sanctions for abuse of process if an= appeal is determined to be frivolous?

This might = mitigate any concern about excessive bureaucracy.
=C2=A0
Very long-term it might make sense to try to better harmonize how we
do moderation on all these different media, but I think that is really
a separate issue, and doesn't need to be settled right away.=C2=A0 I th= ink
that the absence of ANY appeals process in the interim is more of an
issue, as it does leave people who are subject to what might be one
person's decision no real access to due process.=C2=A0 Even if all the<= br> moderators are doing a perfect job there should be a process.

I'd encourage IRC ops or Forums mods to chime in with their thoughts he= re...

--
Rich

--00000000000020d8260580c94a91--