Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> This is a bit later than I intended because of real life interference,
> but here's some ideas for how to enforce the CoC. It's a little long,
> sorry about that; we can push off the vote again if we don't have a
> majority of people prepared for it by the meeting.
> I separated it into problem, conceptual solution, and implementation so
> you can decide which levels you like and which could use tweaking.
Firstly, thanks (from a user) for your hard work on this. Personally I like
the mechanisms discussed for implementation, both the time periods
envisaged and the move to behind-the-scenes.
I feel less comfortable with the following:
1) "a strong lead to ensure the team's actions fit the council's CoC
While I agree the team needs to act consistently, and in a united manner (ie
speak with one voice, as it were) I do not think placing emphasis on one
individual is a wise move. It places greater onus on that person, and often
leads to more stress followed by burnout, with all the attendant problems
which are much more difficult precisely because the individual has greater
authority. A strong team, made of strong personalities who are mature
enough to reach collective decisions, is better both for the appearance of
impartiality and longer-term consistency.
2) "It is expected that membership on this team will be highly selective and
not all who wish to join will make the cut. The team will be limited to
3 people for a probationary period so we don't get dumped in the deep
end right away, and it will never have more than 5 people."
I don't think it should really be a job given to people who want to do it
for the sake of it. The last team appeared to be the right set, based on
their experience, and seemed to take the job because it needed to be done,
not because it was seen as some sort of elite team. Maybe I'm being a bit
sensitive to the nuance of the language, but I think the tone matters.
The numbers others have commented on; I concur that it seems a bit limited
(in the longer-term) to cover the timezones and ensure timely coverage.
Expanding on that a bit, I think it would be good to stipulate some sort of
cross-cultural mix: a team made up of purely North Americans or Anglophones
is not going to be as attuned to the sensitivities of the diverse user base
as is needed, imo.
Wernfried Haas wrote:
> This is quite similar to how warnings andbans are done on the forums,
> we always document who warned/banned whom and for what reason and it
> has worked quite well so far there.
++ to documentation, and the points others raised about an appeals
mechanism. Amne also mentioned discussion with the "offender" before
sanctions are imposed. While I agree that you don't want to get into an
argument with people, I think you're going to have to accept that people
*will* argue about it (even more so given that it's techies) and your team
needs to be ready to justify their decisions. I have no issue with a mute
being imposed first (for a few hours) and the discussion taking place at
that point. But there does need to be that discussion, and the earlier the
better, so that people are brought into line with community expectations at
an early stage, when the conflict is less.
The proposal to review monthly for the first 3 months seems sound too.
Thanks for the proposal so far; the actual details of the day-to-day
implementation are just right imo.
firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list