On 3 April 2017 at 04:08, Brett Cannon firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
On Sun, 2 Apr 2017 at 04:34 Paul Moore email@example.com wrote:
As a result, the public perception of a "code of conduct violation" is that someone has harassed, or otherwise made a community member uncomfortable, specifically because they don't conform to the stereotypical norm. That's not necessarily what any specific code of conduct might say, but it's how the public perceives such things (and high-profile blog entries that expose exclusive behaviour, and cite codes of conduct and how they help and where they fail to, simply reinforce that perception).
We may not like the fact that a simple term like "Code of Conduct" gets appropriated in the public perception in such a way, but denying the reality of it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
But based on how others are stating their views, I'm seem to be in the minority on this one. I'm fine with that as I can view it personally as political wordsmithing. For me the key is that if I'm going to shoulder the burden of being a moderator I want to have the ability to keep discussions open, respectful, and considerate. If that means that someone gets a "CoC" label when they run afoul of those tenants by being mean while they get an "persistently unproductive" label when they run afoul of those labels in how they communicate then I can live with that.
I essentially agree with Brett here, but I also agree with MAL that at least for now we can keep this to a simpler two level system where:
collaborative discussions on PSF provided communication channels, together with the process that channel moderators are advised to follow when imposing temporary suspensions of posting privileges. We then explicitly adopt those rules for the core Python communication channels (python-dev, python-ideas, core-mentorship, the issue tracker and meta-tracker, the python org on GitHub) by updating the Developer Guide appropriately. The trigger for lifting suspensions imposed at this level can just be that: a) the minimum time period specified by the moderators has passed; b) the person suspended explicitly requests that the channel moderators restore their posting privileges.
Whether we call them "Rules for Active Participation" or something else, this step gives channel moderators the explicit authority to govern their channels according to their defined purpose, without having to rely on the Code of Conduct as the sole mechanism for ensuring that folks don't persist indefinitely in wasting other people's time.
posting privileges gets escalated to the elected PSF Board. For example:
converted to a permanent ban
should be converted to a ban from all PSF provided communication channels
This step ensures that channel moderators have a place to appeal for assistance if behavioural management for particular individuals is acting as a persistent drain on *their* time and energy, as well as ensuring that there is a mechanism in place to request reviews of moderator actions that seem to be unreasonable.
The PSF Board has several desirable properties for this purpose:
point of escalation for conduct related concerns on PSF provided communication channels 2. Since the switch to an open membership model for the PSF, the Board is a genuinely representative body for the community at large 3. As an elected body, the accountaibility mechanism for Board level decision making is built into the PSF By-laws 4. The Board membership list at any given point in time is public information 5. The Board is already set up to handle confidential discussion of sensitive matters 6. The Board are in a good position to request PSF staff assistance in handling such matters when it seems appropriate to do so
If we started out by formalising that existing two level model of resource-specific moderators + the PSF (as represented by the Board), it would then be up to the *Board* to decide if it needed a formal process for delegating such discussions and decisions to a smaller group.