Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: desultory <desultory@g.o>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Appeals of Moderation Decisions
Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2019 04:22:38
Message-Id: 6a80c6d4-3f4e-2492-f883-e57fa457b7af@gentoo.org
On 02/02/19 08:41, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 1:34 AM desultory <desultory@g.o> wrote: >> >> As originally constituted, proctors were to essentially be CoC >> enforcement for media no other team was in place (mostly the mailing >> lists), expanding their role to be yet another level of appeal in media >> where other teams are in place seems to be muddling their purpose somewhat. > > The chartering of the Proctors basically covers CoC enforcement on all > Gentoo communication. The Forum moderators are even specifically > mentioned on the Proctors wiki as a means of contacting Proctors. I
Might I suggest, with all due respect, that you read the wiki page to which you refer [proctors] just a bit more carefully? "You can report forum guideline violations directly on the forums to the forum moderators." Is the only direct reference to the forums, the forum moderation team, or the forum guidelines; and it in no way whatsoever implies that the forum moderators are in any way part of the proctors project or a means of contacting proctors any more than anyone else would be. Even if it *did* imply that, forums and proctors are two separate top level projects, neither is part and parcel of the other nor are they meant to be as implied by the other (relevant) bullet points in that same list. To wit: "For #gentoo, please talk to the people in #gentoo-ops." Ergo #gentoo ops are not de facto part of proctors and are a separate entity which is responsible for #gentoo. "If it is in another medium like the mailing lists, you have the feeling the issue is not only limited to one of the media already moderated primarily by another group of moderators, or not taken seriously enough by them, please contact us using the alias proctors@g.o." Which directly states that proctors are to be contacted only if the issue in question is not restricted to areas already covered by other groups which enforce the CoC. Or, more concerningly (as others have mentioned concerns about creeping bureaucracy), if it was "not taken seriously enough", which seems curiously counter to the mission statement of de-escalation. Given that it implies that when those who actually maintain specific media, be it forums, irc channels, or any of the social platforms PR uses, find some complaint to not merit further action than they have already taken, proctors would *itself* escalate the response despite it already having been handled, even if such handling is effectively just telling the complainant that their concerns are overblown. Not to mention grammatical/structural considerations, it would likely be better conveyed by breaking it into a sub list as this bullet point is the only one which actually addresses when to contact proctors and it covers multiple points. "The Proctors are usually present in the irc channel #gentoo-proctors (check the list of operators there), but since they are probably not reading along all the time, it is usually better to use email or ping on IRC so your issue does not get lost." Being the not relevant bullet point I had alluded to, is not actually relevant to the heading under which the list is present, as it describes how to contact proctors, not when; so that could use some editorial attention as well.
> believe the long-term intent was to unify these various groups to some > extent, but this has not yet happened. I think this should also
Your intent it may be, but this is the first I have seen any indication of that intent and just dumping it in the middle of a thread on a mailing list instead of actually discussing the prospect with those involved to gauge interest and/or feasibility beforehand seems a rather poor start. Also, again as forums project lead, at this point I am strongly disinclined to undertake such unification.
> suggest that the appeals process should be the same as for proctors, > since these other moderators are basically acting as extensions of > proctors even if not formalized.
As already noted, forum moderators (and #gentoo ops, at the least) are *expressly* not proctors subordinate projects, according to proctors, let alone themselves.
> > So far the proctors have mainly focused on areas like the > lists/bugzilla where productive Gentoo development occur which lack > any other moderation. When other moderation teams are already > creating a place for productive Gentoo work we haven't gotten as > involved yet, such as: > > https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-1090810-postdays-0-postorder-asc-start-50.html > https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-1080592-postdays-0-postorder-asc-start-25.html > https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-1049438-start-0-postdays-0-postorder-asc-highlight-.html > https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-1091348.html >
Four topics in an expressly off-topic forum, none of which were actually in the state that was claimed by the complainant, makes for a rather poor example of where proctors have not "gotten as involved yet". Given that there was nothing to get involved in.
> I'm not saying that we need some kind of mad rush to consolidate all > moderation activity (otherwise I'd be proposing this). I'm just not > sure I'd be in a rush to say that there isn't opportunity for > improvement either (and the same is certainly true of the mailing > lists, as my earlier reply to mgorny illustrates)... >
Conversely, I am more inclined to address the topic directly: thusfar every attempt to "improve" Gentoo wide CoC conformance has, to put it generously, issues. This rather strongly implies that media specific teams are a more viable solution to the problem at hand. The original proctors project was disbanded because one of the council members who had campaigned for the project in the first place found himself, rightly, on the receiving end of CoC enforcement as laid out and agreed upon. Granted, the lists did get less bad after that particular debacle, but that does not make it less of a mess. Though, to be fair, that was a mess that was in no way the fault of those trying to actually implement the project, other efforts have not fairly so well. ComRel, as I have previously mentioned, engages in some extremely questionable practices, though (again) to their credit at least they admit it. As for the current proctors project, in addition to my comments above, CoC abuses on the lists are quite common and given the distribution of offenses with respect to the set of posters, CoC enforcement does not appear to be effectively implemented even in that limited scope; despite evident efforts to engage in scope creep. This is a distinctly concerning trend, as it rather strongly indicates that the current proctors project either cannot or will not actually undertake its mandate, while it seeks to expand its direct sphere of responsibility; which, by rather direct implication would mean that the proctors would end up as the sole CoC "enforcement" body (dissolving #gentoo ops, forum moderation and other groups) while not enforcing the CoC (nor site or channel specific rules as the proctors only expressly cover CoC violations. [proctors] https://wiki.gentoo.org/index.php?title=Project:Proctors