Re: Code of conduct enforcement

[Ricardo Wurmus]

Ludovic Courtès <l...@gnu.org> writes:

My proposal is to set up a moderation team, separate from maintainers, whose sole responsibility would be CoC enforcement and that could be

held accountable.  The implications as I see it would be:


     fatigue and to reduce the risk of continued biases.

  2. Mandatory transparency reports that the team would send

     on the cases themselves).


     of the Contributor Covenant, which was used before commit

1. A fixed-term mandate for moderation team members, both to avoid periodically to summarize its actions (without giving any details 3. Revocable mandate in case its mission is not fulfilled (version 1.4 4254d74b4ca6d4aa78b7fa055fc9ec72a2e93ad3, included such a clause).

This sounds reasonable to me.


maintainers regularly for the following reasons:




 thus to dilute the effects that a grown hierarchy (even for
 bureaucratic purposes) can imprint on a community over time;


 responsibility as roles were transparently shuffled often.


won't be able to volunteer my time.

--
Ricardo

Back when I was a co-maintainer, my assumption was that we would rotate - to avoid burnout, as maintainers were responsible both for dealing with CoC enforcement and releases --- both not the most pleasant tasks; - to de-emphasize the perceived authority of those holding the role, and - to ensure that there's a path for any contributor to taking over more Things didn't quite pan out this way, but it's not too late to correct this, so I'm happy for this call for participation... even though I

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature