1 |
Hello, everyone. |
2 |
|
3 |
Since the things around ComRel seem to have cooled down a bit, I think |
4 |
we can now start a serious discussion on how disciplinary action |
5 |
handling could be improved. While the recent complaints were focused on |
6 |
ComRel, I would like to take a more generic approach since ComRel is |
7 |
not the only body in Gentoo capable of disciplinary action. |
8 |
|
9 |
Therefore, I'd like my proposal to concern all cases of disciplinary |
10 |
action, involving but not limited to: ComRel, QA, Forum moderators, IRC |
11 |
moderators, Wiki admins and any other entity capable of enforcing |
12 |
a disciplinary action against developers and users. |
13 |
|
14 |
Note: throughout the mail 'users' include all people involved on |
15 |
the Gentoo communication channels, developers, users, bystanders |
16 |
and bots alike. |
17 |
|
18 |
|
19 |
Problems |
20 |
-------- |
21 |
1. Lack of transparency (this seems to be improving but I don't think |
22 |
we have a proper rules for that), that causes two issues: |
23 |
|
24 |
a. Users indirectly involved in disciplinary action are unaware of it |
25 |
which causes unnecessary confusion. Example: user is unaware that |
26 |
a person is banned from Bugzilla, and incorrectly assumes that |
27 |
the developer or user does not wish to reply to him. |
28 |
|
29 |
b. Users presume disciplinary bodies attempt to hide their actions |
30 |
which unnecessary builds tension and accusations. This becomes worse |
31 |
when the subjects of those actions are the only sides speaking upon |
32 |
the matter, and spreading false information. |
33 |
|
34 |
2. Unclear appeal procedure (outside ComRel). For example, users that |
35 |
get banned on IRC don't have a clear suggestion on where to appeal to |
36 |
a particular decision, or whether there is any appeal possible at all. |
37 |
|
38 |
3. Lack of supervision. Likewise, most of teams capable of some degree |
39 |
of disciplinary action are not supervised by any other body in Gentoo, |
40 |
some not even indirectly. |
41 |
|
42 |
4. Lack of cooperation. Most of disciplinary teams in Gentoo operate |
43 |
in complete isolation. Users affected by disciplinary actions |
44 |
sometimes simply switch to another channel and continue their bad |
45 |
behavior under another disciplinary team. |
46 |
|
47 |
|
48 |
In this proposal, I'd like to discuss introducing a few simple rules |
49 |
that would be binding to all teams capable of enforcing a disciplinary |
50 |
actions, and that aim to improve the current situation. My proposed |
51 |
rules are: |
52 |
|
53 |
|
54 |
1. Secrecy |
55 |
---------- |
56 |
Due to the nature of disciplinary affairs, the teams involved |
57 |
in performing them are obliged to retain secrecy of the information |
58 |
gathered. This includes both collected material (logs, messages, etc.) |
59 |
and names of the individuals providing them. |
60 |
|
61 |
All the sensitive information involving disciplinary affairs can be |
62 |
*securely* passed only to other members of the disciplinary team |
63 |
involved in the affair and the current Council members, upon legitimate |
64 |
request. The obtained information should also be stored securely. |
65 |
|
66 |
It is only necessary for a single member of the disciplinary team to |
67 |
store the information (or to use a single collective store). |
68 |
The Council members should remove all obtained information after |
69 |
the appeal/audit. |
70 |
|
71 |
It should be noted that an unauthorized disclosure of sensitive |
72 |
information by any party involved would be a base for a strong |
73 |
disciplinary action. |
74 |
|
75 |
Rationale: |
76 |
|
77 |
a. The collected material sometimes contains various bits of private |
78 |
information whose disclosure is completely unnecessary and would only |
79 |
unnecessarily violate individual's privacy. Gentoo ought to respect |
80 |
privacy of users, and do not invade it without necessity. |
81 |
|
82 |
b. Publishing names of individuals involved in a disciplinary action |
83 |
could encourage the subjects to seek revenge. While keeping them secret |
84 |
often does not prevent it (or even worse, causes the individuals to |
85 |
seek revenge on larger group of people), we ought not to encourage |
86 |
it. |
87 |
|
88 |
|
89 |
2. Transparency |
90 |
--------------- |
91 |
Any disciplinary action should be announced by the team in a manner |
92 |
specific to the appropriate media where the measure applies. |
93 |
The announcement should be visible to all users of that media, |
94 |
and contains: |
95 |
|
96 |
- the name of the user to whom the measure applies, |
97 |
|
98 |
- the description and length of the measure applied. |
99 |
|
100 |
For example, a ban on a mailing list could be announced to the mailing |
101 |
list in question. A ban on Bugzilla could involve adding appropriate |
102 |
note to the user's name, so that all other users see that he can't |
103 |
respond at the time. A ban on IRC could be stored e.g. on wiki page, |
104 |
or noted on a bug. |
105 |
|
106 |
Furthermore, any disciplinary action must be reported to the Council. |
107 |
The reporting is done through a bug that is opened at the first |
108 |
disciplinary measure inflicted on a user, and reused at any following |
109 |
measures. It should contain the information listed above, and have |
110 |
the Council in CC. No private information should be ever included |
111 |
in the bug. |
112 |
|
113 |
Rationale: |
114 |
|
115 |
a. As noted above, the disciplinary measure often affect more users |
116 |
than the subject of the action. It is therefore most advisable to |
117 |
notice them of the action (i.e. that they can't expect the particular |
118 |
user to reply) and their length, while protecting as much privacy as |
119 |
possible. |
120 |
|
121 |
b. It is also beneficial for the subject of the action to have |
122 |
a publicly visible note of the measure applied, and clear statement of |
123 |
its length. |
124 |
|
125 |
c. Opening bugs for all disciplinary actions helps teams keep track of |
126 |
them and their durations, note repeated offenders and finally report |
127 |
all actions to the Council for auditing purposes. |
128 |
|
129 |
|
130 |
3. Appeal |
131 |
--------- |
132 |
All disciplinary decisions (both actions and refusals to perform |
133 |
action) can be appealed to the Council. In this case, the disciplinary |
134 |
team is obliged to securely pass all material collected to the Council. |
135 |
The Council can either support, modify or dismiss the decision |
136 |
entirely. There is no further appeal. |
137 |
|
138 |
It should be noted that the disciplinary actions must not prevent |
139 |
the appeal from being filed. |
140 |
|
141 |
Rationale: |
142 |
|
143 |
a. Having a single body to handle all appeals makes the procedures |
144 |
simpler to our users and more consistent. This also guarantees that |
145 |
all measures can be appealed exactly once, and no channels are |
146 |
privileged. |
147 |
|
148 |
b. The Council is currently the highest body elected by Gentoo |
149 |
developers with the trust of being able to handle appeals from ComRel |
150 |
decisions. It seems reasonable to extend that to all disciplinary |
151 |
decisions in Gentoo. |
152 |
|
153 |
|
154 |
4. Supervision |
155 |
-------------- |
156 |
At the same time, Council is assumed to supervise all disciplinary |
157 |
affairs in Gentoo. As noted in 2., all decisions made are reported to |
158 |
the Council for auditing. Those reports combined with appeals should |
159 |
allow the Council to notice any suspicious behavior from particular |
160 |
disciplinary teams. |
161 |
|
162 |
For the necessity of audit, the disciplinary teams should retain all |
163 |
material supporting their disciplinary audit in a secure manner, |
164 |
throughout the time of the disciplinary action and at least half a year |
165 |
past it. The Council can request all this information to audit |
166 |
the behavior of a particular team and/or its member. |
167 |
|
168 |
Rationale: |
169 |
|
170 |
a. Having a proper auditing procedure in place is necessary to improve |
171 |
the trust our users put in our disciplinary teams. It should discourage |
172 |
any members of our disciplinary teams from attempting to abuse their |
173 |
privileges, and help discover that quickly if it actually happens. |
174 |
|
175 |
b. The necessity of storing information supporting disciplinary |
176 |
decisions is helpful both for the purpose of auditing as well as for |
177 |
(potentially late) appeals. Keeping old information is necessary to |
178 |
support stronger decisions made for repeat offenders. |
179 |
|
180 |
|
181 |
5. Cooperation |
182 |
-------------- |
183 |
While it is not strictly necessary for different disciplinary teams to |
184 |
cooperate, in some cases it could be useful to handle troublemakers |
185 |
more efficiently across different channels. |
186 |
|
187 |
Since all disciplinary actions are published, a team may notice that |
188 |
another team has enforced a disciplinary action on their user. This |
189 |
could be used as a suggestion that the user is a potential troublemaker |
190 |
but the team must collect the evidence of wrongdoing in their own |
191 |
channel before enforcing any action. It should be noted that |
192 |
disciplinary teams are not allowed to exchange private information. |
193 |
|
194 |
When multiple teams inflict disciplinary actions on the same user, they |
195 |
can request the Council to consider issuing a cross-channel Gentoo |
196 |
disciplinary action. In this case, the Council requests material from |
197 |
all involved teams (alike when auditing) and may request a consistent |
198 |
disciplinary action from all disciplinary teams in Gentoo. |
199 |
|
200 |
Rationale: |
201 |
|
202 |
a. Under normal circumstances, a bad behavior on one communication |
203 |
channel should not prevent the user from contributing on another. |
204 |
However, we should have a more efficient procedure to handle the case |
205 |
when user is a repeating troublemaker and moves from one channel to |
206 |
another. |
207 |
|
208 |
b. Preventing information exchange serves the purpose of protecting |
209 |
users' privacy. The access to sensitive information should be |
210 |
restricted as narrowly as possible. Disciplinary teams should perform |
211 |
decisions autonomously to prevent corruption of one team resulting |
212 |
in unnecessary actions from another. |
213 |
|
214 |
|
215 |
Migration |
216 |
--------- |
217 |
It would seem unreasonable to request all disciplinary teams to either |
218 |
report all their past decisions right now, or to lift them immediately. |
219 |
However, if this policy is accepted, all teams would be obliged to |
220 |
follow it for any further decisions. |
221 |
|
222 |
It would also be recommended for teams to appropriate update at least |
223 |
recent decisions or those that are brought up again (e.g. via appeal or |
224 |
repeat offense). |
225 |
|
226 |
|
227 |
What do you think? |
228 |
|
229 |
-- |
230 |
Best regards, |
231 |
Michał Górny |
232 |
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/> |