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 8E1B2138334 for ; Sat, 2 Feb 2019 07:07:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5981CE0972; Sat, 2 Feb 2019 07:07:29 +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 06C2FE096A for ; Sat, 2 Feb 2019 07:07:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ot1-x333.google.com with SMTP id e12so8068817otl.5 for ; Fri, 01 Feb 2019 23:07:28 -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 :cc; bh=n8cUjJLcTd4chpWuEEwKK7aN0/b4maBK2ITH9YsZTVU=; b=GQ2SiuuO0cm5hg4f2pVRk95XRdTRYvj50LZBHs7uPt0Vy8sOwBdS4qdN/GlUklN/j5 +gX7Tmo1cLhaa9cwyYEm4tPzEqvUKNAU5Su2/k3AHdCeCMaAJm6hpUc6I3FRrXJfZyt0 necDsF0OjU39+CYZqw8A4zTv6iW4JnyHeIwno4aFlLrmuuEP+jfPSIwr4H6ZRMvWWJsX qre2yR4riWlrrQDgB4RrAgZt7IVRJSr1oSxfL9USq+3Iu7adeccDpzauLyMKoACbaJg9 Tgg7ZrwkKuUw8Krn9+8HKkrwIEFIVBcE+RFQ0LkirAOtQGcj/By6gONkjlee84TytqHW CWjQ== 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:cc; bh=n8cUjJLcTd4chpWuEEwKK7aN0/b4maBK2ITH9YsZTVU=; b=IF7CvRwktXprpyFiKppfkCTuh7DDIG6NSO45It+jAONBGv+dobeM+BSkWM3gsgAwVk g1sAdD5Ymv6osFWdTKoJhKq6X4IdIyNp4c4pll7Cg0sGxsUXk85lZ/caWTN9VUJMdmDy O9OPJG+kCLw1oo/2+avNYvdlz8GWYT11/JXGK5NI+cOwhoJbtlk5d22c2aDrBEXsLu0y eFQOvb6UpbKjh4suLzve6NZt3OUc+VTcqGW/8hV4Ei8W102hpXTvrTtk3H9dcsamUbAB fVUM9g2VrvVP7T53b6Iy3HiNjWAAntOpu7UI5tuWzxE+g3xvIR0k5WBKtBEP/3L99dCR tYkg== X-Gm-Message-State: AJcUukcxrFjvVhdtFm2oRJiDZ876mwLY7m9fKeHTJCInCIkfkNayz5Pn 1WGIKthAAeixcDjjbZIRrYtQzWnvDiviCZNCOmc= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ALg8bN5kYeAH8UMkwfeLkkWQGPkjjcotLVJ4DVcPc6rQ1XVhfav6cjC/UHfLPP3ubvuYA/VtBlQoDTWuBA/Dts63ZzY= X-Received: by 2002:a9d:7749:: with SMTP id t9mr32720114otl.342.1549091247630; Fri, 01 Feb 2019 23:07:27 -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> <57b016d8-e7d2-829e-5b34-e63252226123@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <57b016d8-e7d2-829e-5b34-e63252226123@gentoo.org> From: Raymond Jennings Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2019 23:06:51 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Appeals of Moderation Decisions To: desultory Cc: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000008a2eb70580e3e990" X-Archives-Salt: c0b11e62-6f49-4147-acb9-dd0944a21bbe X-Archives-Hash: 723341166854aa1d5a23a79428e1c77c --0000000000008a2eb70580e3e990 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 10:39 PM desultory wrote: > On 01/31/19 18:21, Raymond Jennings wrote: > > 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. > > > Additional bureaucracy would mitigate concern about excessive > bureaucracy? ;) > In all seriousness, yes actually. If "additional bureaucracy" comes in the form of defending the existing bureaucracy by providing a disincentive to abuse it, I would see it as an investment with a positive return. It seems a self evident benefit to make someone think twice before spamming a higher court as it were with baloney. > Seriously though, the option to sanction users (which expressly must > include all developers) for frivolous appeals could at least potentially > reduce concerns regarding abuse of that appeals process. However, > mishandling of appeals is also a concern which bears addressing if one > is going quite that far down the bureaucratic rabbit hole. > > Cases where an appeals process, with regard to electronic media, is > being abused tend to already have some underlying issue; if they don't > the sanctions process is almost certainly being abused. > > > > >> 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 > >> > >> > > > > --0000000000008a2eb70580e3e990 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 10:39 PM desultory= <desultory@gentoo.org> w= rote:
On 01/31/19 18:21, Raymond Jennings wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 11:27 AM Rich Freeman <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 moderatio= n
>>> decisions in general for any official Gentoo communications me= dia?=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 think
>>> IRC and Forums are the areas with gaps - to the extent that ei= ther 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.=C2=A0 Minor action= s like
>> warnings or short bans are final, and longer bans are appealable t= o
>> 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
>> of bureaucracy as in theory an IRC op might make a decision, then<= br> >> Proctors takes an appeal, then Comrel takes an appeal, and then ma= ybe
>> 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 fo= r
> abuse of process if an appeal is determined to be frivolous?
>
> This might mitigate any concern about excessive bureaucracy.
>
Additional bureaucracy would mitigate concern about excessive
bureaucracy? ;)

In all seriousness, yes= actually.

If "additional bureaucracy" c= omes in the form of defending the existing bureaucracy by providing a disin= centive to abuse it, I would see it as an investment with a positive return= .

It seems a self evident benefit to make someone = think twice before spamming a higher court as it were with baloney.
=C2=A0
Seriously though, the option to sanction users (which expressly must
include all developers) for frivolous appeals could at least potentially reduce concerns regarding abuse of that appeals process. However,
mishandling of appeals is also a concern which bears addressing if one
is going quite that far down the bureaucratic rabbit hole.

Cases where an appeals process, with regard to electronic media, is
being abused tend to already have some underlying issue; if they don't<= br> the sanctions process is almost certainly being abused.

>
>> 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 re= ally
>> a separate issue, and doesn't need to be settled right away.= =C2=A0 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 on= e
>> person's decision no real access to due process.=C2=A0 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 th= oughts
>> here...
>>
>> --
>> Rich
>>
>>
>

--0000000000008a2eb70580e3e990--