I would like to make a procedural proposal based on the ideas emerging from the other python-committers discussion regarding the two month suspension of Github project access for a developer who was posting non-productively.
It seems that there is general agreement to differentiate commonplace list moderation actions from CoC actions which are more of a nuclear option to be reserved for egregious cases of harassment and abuse.
Also, there is general agreement not to concentrate that power in the hands of a single person and that we should have some principles and procedures in place.
I propose that when someone thinks there is a problem serious enough to warrant a Code-of-Conduct action, that it get referred to a group of three people to make the decision. Two of those three people should be long-term, senior, and respected core devs who have good knowledge of the community (Brett Cannon, Nick Coghlan, Antoine Pitrou, et al). The third person should be someone who is also well-respected but more independent and who has more experience in sociology and community management issues (Alex Gaynor or Carol Willing come to mind).
To prevent endless bickering and sharing of sensitive details, the group's decision should be considered settled business which can only be overridden either by an appeal to the PSF board or by the BDFL. When possible, the affected person should be contacted and given an opportunity to defend themselves. The decision shall be announced on python-committers with an overall rationale but without personal details.
The group shall consider the needs of the community first and foremost, and secondarily shall prioritize being as respectful as possible to all parties, and thirdly shall do whatever they can to mitigate the harm to the violator. The actions shall be taken with an intent to protect the vibrancy of the Python community rather than with an intent to punish, humiliate, or discredit the affected person. When possible, some path to redemption or forgiveness shall be offered.