On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 1:55 AM, Stanislav Malyshev <smalys...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi! > > > currently I (and a bunch of other people) could revoke anybody's karma, > > how is this any different(ofc. it would be reverted and I would get a > > scolding)? > > The difference is that those 5(3) people get a special stand, while > right now everybody is equal (well, there are RMs but that is more > functional role). What these people are doing is assumed to be "fighting > harassment", and their target is assumed to be an offender, and thus in > the wrong. Moreover, they are empowered to silence that person just by > their own decision, without seeking consensus about it upfront. If you > or I did that - even in case where it is justified - it would raise some > eyebrows and get some scolding, as you correctly noted. So that's my > problem with it - that by this RFC, 3 people can do it with no consensus > at all. > > I can understand where are you coming from. > > we just have to make the process transparent and as mentioned in the RFC > > any permanent action would require an RFC and consensus from the project: > > "f the CoC team determines that a longer temporary ban or a permanent > > ban is necessary, they shall institute a temporary ban and raise an RFC > > to the general project to effect the desired ban. Once the RFC is > > issued, the temporary ban's lifetime will be tied to the RFC's lifetime > > (will expire when the vote is finished)." > > Which means while this RFC is discussed, the accused person remains > banned (thus unable to participate in any discussion). And, CoC is not > required to disclose much: > > The CoC shall report a redacted summary of the incident > /.../ > All incidents are to be kept in the strictest form of confidentiality. > The CoC team shall be the only group to know about the reporter and the > precise details of any incident. > > I.e. if 3 persons in CoC hate N and want to chase her our of the > project, they vote internally that she is guilty of "Other unethical or > unprofessional conduct", ban her from all community spaces and then tell > the rest of the community anything they like about what happened and > demand permanent ban. I don't think it is a good idea. > > for that to happen you need a corrupt CoC team, a fairly unknown N (otherwise there would be a bunch of people talking for him/her on the list to demand proof for the sanctions), the yet to be drafter part of the privacy part to allow the details to be kept back even if N wants it to be public and eventually N could still go public and prove his/her innocence while I can understand that he would be in an unfavorable position version the CoC team. but still, this to happen would need all of the above and the first controversial case would reveal the corruption of the members or the flaws of the process and we could fix that. -- Ferenc Kovács @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu
