Re: [gentoo-project] Appeals of Moderation Decisions

[Raymond Jennings]

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
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>