1 |
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 00:25:34 +0000 (UTC) |
2 |
"Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" <jmbsvicetto@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> The general rule is that you appeal an irc ban to the team |
5 |
> responsible for the irc channel (#gentoo-ops for #gentoo, ComRel for |
6 |
> #gentoo-dev and individual project teams for #gentoo-* channels). |
7 |
> If an appeal of the team decision is needed, it should be either |
8 |
> directed to the Gentoo Freenode Group Contacts |
9 |
|
10 |
#gentoo is currently operated under the assumption that appeals go to |
11 |
ComRel. Users who appeal their ban to the team get a review and as a |
12 |
rule are advised to contact ComRel if they want to appeal the team |
13 |
decision. The #gentoo ops team has never used Gentoo Freenode Group |
14 |
Contacts for appealing #gentoo user bans, so this is a bit novel to |
15 |
me. |
16 |
|
17 |
Gentoo Freenode Group Contacts is a (team of?) contacts that represent |
18 |
Gentoo to Freenode. I don't see how or why they should be directly |
19 |
involved in channel user management as they aren't now - Gentoo |
20 |
Freenode Group Contacts simply manage official "#gentoo*" channels and |
21 |
their ownership with the network. |
22 |
|
23 |
> (#gentoo-groupcontacts) the people that interact with Freenode and |
24 |
> can in last resort close a channel or take ownershipt of it or ComRel |
25 |
> if there was an abuse of power by a Developer. All actions by ComRel |
26 |
> can be appelead for the Council. ComRel is involved here as this was |
27 |
> done by UserRel before. |
28 |
|
29 |
OK, that's channel management, then, and not user-per-channel |
30 |
management. If you manage a channel under the #gentoo moniker, then you |
31 |
get to upkeep some minimal standards as you will be regarded as part of |
32 |
the wider community. Fair enough. |
33 |
|
34 |
But we don't actually manage cross-channel user management at |
35 |
all right now. Someone banned on #gentoo can go to #gentoo-chat for |
36 |
support or ranting or whatever she is allowed to do there (or anywhere |
37 |
else). This is a Good Thing. We don't need a higher body specifically |
38 |
for that. |
39 |
|
40 |
> One thing you mention that might be worth, is having a way to make |
41 |
> clear that a bugzilla account is "disabled". I don't think we should |
42 |
> be explicit about an account being banned. |
43 |
|
44 |
"Disabled" is ambiguous. We currently appear to use "retired" for |
45 |
developers on bugzilla. I think "inactive" might be a better |
46 |
generic word for closed bugzilla accounts. |
47 |
|
48 |
> Appeal bodies are tied to the communication medium. Also, issues |
49 |
> involving user / developer conflicts, like perceived abuses by |
50 |
> moderation teams, fall within ComRel (formerly UserRel) purview. |
51 |
|
52 |
To give an example: the nature of Internet Relay Chat effects that a |
53 |
corrective measure is usually abrupt and absolute and the object of the |
54 |
measure will usually feel that power has been abused in some way. This |
55 |
involves a lot of flaming and venting (usually about the |
56 |
nature of the operator's motivations for power use, or some inadequately |
57 |
explained Amendment to some Constitution in some exotic country or |
58 |
other) in side channels that normally results in the ban being lifted |
59 |
after a cool-down period that seems appropriate at the time or some 20 |
60 |
days by default. Referring these measures directly to the Council or |
61 |
even ComRel would make it _more_difficult_for the IRC user to appeal and |
62 |
wouldn't shorten the cool-down. |
63 |
|
64 |
Even presenting the information to a higher instance would be an arduous |
65 |
task and this proposal doesn't say where they would find the resources |
66 |
to pay for the man power to do all that administrative work, or indeed |
67 |
how, in detail, that instance could possibly involve itself in the |
68 |
everyday dealings so directly. |
69 |
|
70 |
> You don't got to the Supreme Court before going though the appeals |
71 |
> court. |
72 |
|
73 |
You didn't mention a legal system in which that statement is true or |
74 |
praise the merits of such a legal system in particular. I must stress |
75 |
that it certainly isn't universally true. |
76 |
|
77 |
> > When multiple teams inflict disciplinary actions on the same user, |
78 |
> > they can request the Council to consider issuing a cross-channel |
79 |
> > Gentoo disciplinary action. |
80 |
|
81 |
This (and what followed) assumes you can positively identify users, |
82 |
particularly across media, and that's where it all falls down. |
83 |
|
84 |
> > What do you think? |
85 |
|
86 |
My UFO detector says you're trying to concentrate many dispersed powers |
87 |
(of observation as well as execution) in a single instance. They Live! |
88 |
|
89 |
> Regards, |
90 |
> Jorge |
91 |
|
92 |
Thanks, I agreed with most of that. |
93 |
|
94 |
|
95 |
jer |