| 1 |
On 01/31/19 18:21, Raymond Jennings wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 11:27 AM Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 2:11 PM Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
>>> |
| 6 |
>>> Can Council define an appeals process for appeals of moderation |
| 7 |
>>> decisions in general for any official Gentoo communications media? I |
| 8 |
>>> think we have this for mailing lists, as Proctors is the only real |
| 9 |
>>> moderation there and Proctors does have an appeals process. I think |
| 10 |
>>> IRC and Forums are the areas with gaps - to the extent that either has |
| 11 |
>>> an appeals process I can't find it documented anywhere (I welcome |
| 12 |
>>> leads in both areas to comment). |
| 13 |
>>> |
| 14 |
>> |
| 15 |
>> Proctors already has a defined appeals process. Minor actions like |
| 16 |
>> warnings or short bans are final, and longer bans are appealable to |
| 17 |
>> Comrel. IMO this is a reasonable balance. |
| 18 |
>> |
| 19 |
>> To the extent that either IRC or Forums formally has a process for |
| 20 |
>> short-term bans (<1wk)/etc I would suggest those also be |
| 21 |
>> non-appealable beyond any internal process these teams have. |
| 22 |
>> |
| 23 |
>> For appeals beyond this I suggest that Comrel also be the point of |
| 24 |
>> appeal. I think Proctors could also work, but it raises the question |
| 25 |
>> of bureaucracy as in theory an IRC op might make a decision, then |
| 26 |
>> Proctors takes an appeal, then Comrel takes an appeal, and then maybe |
| 27 |
>> even Council takes an appeal. That is a lot of appeals. |
| 28 |
>> |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> My two cents: |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> Would there be any merit for the imposition of additional sanctions for |
| 33 |
> abuse of process if an appeal is determined to be frivolous? |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> This might mitigate any concern about excessive bureaucracy. |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
Additional bureaucracy would mitigate concern about excessive |
| 38 |
bureaucracy? ;) |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
Seriously though, the option to sanction users (which expressly must |
| 41 |
include all developers) for frivolous appeals could at least potentially |
| 42 |
reduce concerns regarding abuse of that appeals process. However, |
| 43 |
mishandling of appeals is also a concern which bears addressing if one |
| 44 |
is going quite that far down the bureaucratic rabbit hole. |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
Cases where an appeals process, with regard to electronic media, is |
| 47 |
being abused tend to already have some underlying issue; if they don't |
| 48 |
the sanctions process is almost certainly being abused. |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
> |
| 51 |
>> Very long-term it might make sense to try to better harmonize how we |
| 52 |
>> do moderation on all these different media, but I think that is really |
| 53 |
>> a separate issue, and doesn't need to be settled right away. I think |
| 54 |
>> that the absence of ANY appeals process in the interim is more of an |
| 55 |
>> issue, as it does leave people who are subject to what might be one |
| 56 |
>> person's decision no real access to due process. Even if all the |
| 57 |
>> moderators are doing a perfect job there should be a process. |
| 58 |
>> |
| 59 |
>> I'd encourage IRC ops or Forums mods to chime in with their thoughts |
| 60 |
>> here... |
| 61 |
>> |
| 62 |
>> -- |
| 63 |
>> Rich |
| 64 |
>> |
| 65 |
>> |
| 66 |
> |
Archives