Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: Raymond Jennings <shentino@×××××.com>
To: desultory <desultory@g.o>
Cc: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Appeals of Moderation Decisions
Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2019 07:07:31
Message-Id: CAGDaZ_qzThgx=BSDBTsie+FhSmqtMDx1mXRRm_F+8nnGEPWBYQ@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-project] Appeals of Moderation Decisions by desultory
On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 10:39 PM desultory <desultory@g.o> wrote:

> On 01/31/19 18:21, Raymond Jennings wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 11:27 AM Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: > > > >> On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 2:11 PM Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> 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 > >> > >> > > > >