rfc: add spec for public Moderation log #83
Conversation
| 1. Cause harm to a community member, either physical, emotional, or career-wise. | ||
| 2. Could be considered defamatory. | ||
| 3. Reveals private details or information. | ||
| 4. Incite targeted harassment in any way to any of the involved parties. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this might be self-evident, but should “when legally required” be listed here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, that's a good idea.
|
I've added two things with the latest push: a clause about legal requirements, and an explanation that if a decision by the Moderation Team is reversed, a line should be added, instead of removing old lines. The log should be largely append-only with limited allowed edits. |
rfcs/moderation-log.md
Outdated
| There are some exception where even with the above, a scrub request may be | ||
| refused, at the discretion of the Moderation Team: | ||
|
|
||
| 1. The violation by the moderatee is extreme enough that they can be considered |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm probably being overly pedantic, but is moderatee a real™️ word? would something like offending party be better, or maybe subject of moderation?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I like "subject of moderation". And my linguist side believes it's important to accept coinings just as well -- but I think rewording this will make it clearer. People get confused enough about "mentor/mentee" sort of stuff.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
tbh, you should probably coin moderatee, it seems no one else has used it :-)
|
Note to reviewers: I've added the required section to the CoC as part of this PR. |
rfcs/moderation-log.md
Outdated
| Conduct](https://github.com/ayojs/ayo/blob/latest/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md) was | ||
| ratified, the Moderation Team has been entrusted with following the processes | ||
| described there in order to promote the general health and safety of the | ||
| community. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🎨 [copy editing/style] The introduction reflects temporal closeness of the CoC ratification and Moderation Team introduction. It is more relevant today, since these things are all new.
Reading this sentence in a year or two, the aspect of when the CoC was ratified is less relevant. As a matter style only, I suggest a more timeless rephrase along the lines of:
The Moderation team is entrusted with following the processes described in the [Ayo.js Code of
+Conduct](https://github.com/ayojs/ayo/blob/latest/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md) in order to promote the general health and safety of the
+community.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
After playing around with it and trying out your rewording, I think it's best to just remove this introduction altogether. A better, more relevant introduction already exists not much further below, in the Keeping a Log section.
rfcs/moderation-log.md
Outdated
| described there in order to promote the general health and safety of the | ||
| community. | ||
|
|
||
| A reality of this is that, while the documented moderation process emphasizes |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🎨 s/A reality of this is that, w/W/
zkat
force-pushed
the
zkat/modlog
branch
2 times, most recently
from
71cf22d to
aba66e0
Compare
rfcs/moderation-log.md
Outdated
| representatives. | ||
|
|
||
| The Moderation Team reserves the right to scrub any existing lines at will, | ||
| based on team consensus, at their best judgment, but unless the matter is |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd end this statement after "judgement" and adapt the next sentence accordingly; this is pretty tough to parse with so many commas.
[ci skip] PR-URL: #83 Reviewed-By: Jan Lehnardt <jan@apache.org> Reviewed-By: Stephen Belanger <admin@stephenbelanger.com> Reviewed-By: James Butler <james.butler@sandfox.co.uk> Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <anna@addaleax.net> Reviewed-By: Alex <alex@dytry.ch> Reviewed-By: <agentantelope+github@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: olivia <olivia@fastmail.com> Reviewed-By: srilq <git@srilq.email> Reviewed-By: Scott Trinh <scott@scotttrinh.com>
[ci skip] PR-URL: #83 Reviewed-By: Jan Lehnardt <jan@apache.org> Reviewed-By: Stephen Belanger <admin@stephenbelanger.com> Reviewed-By: James Butler <james.butler@sandfox.co.uk> Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <anna@addaleax.net> Reviewed-By: Alex <alex@dytry.ch> Reviewed-By: <agentantelope+github@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: olivia <olivia@fastmail.com> Reviewed-By: srilq <git@srilq.email> Reviewed-By: Scott Trinh <scott@scotttrinh.com>
[ci skip] PR-URL: #83 Reviewed-By: Jan Lehnardt <jan@apache.org> Reviewed-By: Stephen Belanger <admin@stephenbelanger.com> Reviewed-By: James Butler <james.butler@sandfox.co.uk> Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <anna@addaleax.net> Reviewed-By: Alex <alex@dytry.ch> Reviewed-By: <agentantelope+github@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: olivia <olivia@fastmail.com> Reviewed-By: srilq <git@srilq.email> Reviewed-By: Scott Trinh <scott@scotttrinh.com>
[ci skip] PR-URL: #83 Reviewed-By: Jan Lehnardt <jan@apache.org> Reviewed-By: Stephen Belanger <admin@stephenbelanger.com> Reviewed-By: James Butler <james.butler@sandfox.co.uk> Reviewed-By: Anna Henningsen <anna@addaleax.net> Reviewed-By: Alex <alex@dytry.ch> Reviewed-By: <agentantelope+github@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: olivia <olivia@fastmail.com> Reviewed-By: srilq <git@srilq.email> Reviewed-By: Scott Trinh <scott@scotttrinh.com>
Checklist
Affected core subsystem(s)
rfcpoliciesDescription
(Rendered RFC for convenience.)
Here's my proposal for a public log of actions taken by the Moderation team. This is an initial draft that I think covers a lot of concerns people might have with something like this, but I think this sort of thing is important to have in order to increase community trust and confidence in the moderation team.
You can find a "prototype" of the spreadsheet this RFC would yield here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-I4miSFFLEeJpI6N7BYKe_0OKiZRSiuIEqjRvDglPds/edit?usp=sharing, which includes actions taken by the moderation team so far.