[python-committers] Proposal for procedures regarding CoC actions

[Nick Coghlan]

On 4 May 2017 at 06:10, Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote:
> Two ex-board members disagree. I have to side with Brian; the PSF board
> should have minimal say in how the developers develop.
>
> Note, I'm fine with the board being the arbiter when someone disagrees with
> their ban though -- there's got to be a "higher authority" for appeals. But
> I don't agree that the board should be the decider on the initial ban.

I think initial temporary suspensions should definitely be handled
without involving the Board (just as they are for any other PSF
provided channel).

I also think there are two cases that can definitely only be handled
at the board level:

- folks that feel they've been treated unfairly by the core
development team appealing to the Board for reconsideration
- the core development team recommending that a ban from our channels
(python-dev, python-ideas, core-workflow, bugs.python.org, GitHub
python org) be extended to other PSF provided channels

I'd previously said that I thought conversion of temporary suspensions
to permanent bans should also go to the Board, but I now think it
makes more sense to handle that as:

- the Board gets notified if a temporary suspension is now considered
a permanent ban
- they only need to get further involved if the ban is appealed

Cheers,
Nick.

P.S. Don't forget that the specific context here is *public* behaviour
that is the domain of channel moderators, rather than confidentially
reported Code of Conduct concerns. Handling of the latter will remain
with the PSF Board or their appointed representatives, independently
of how we handle moderation of the development channels.

-- 
Nick Coghlan   |   ncoghlan at gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia