I've made yet another re-read of the text and I think that it requires some clarification of "who does what". Suggestions in the text below.
Marta On środa 09 październik 2013 10:58:01 Jos Poortvliet writes: > > > *The proposal* > > This is meant as *addition* to the way the CWG work. The CWG has been around > for a while, it has build a reputation and trust. It has shown to be good, > helpful and not dangerous. This is a good time to give it teeth. > > Summary: > I propose to give the CWG the ability to ban somebody temporarily from our > infrastructure. The process needs to be documented fully; the e.V. Board acts > as a place for appeal. The e.V. membership has the right to appoint a > committee to review the decisions and actions via these documents afterward. > > *What happens* > > 1. warning > Once the CWG feels somebody is unwilling to change their behavior after > (many) open and friendly conversations, they warn this person. The warning > (to be worded by the CWG) states that if the person does not stop this > behavior, a cool down period of 2 weeks will be enforced. This means two > weeks no access to any KDE infrastructure. The observation period starts from the moment the warning is sent. > 2. Time-out > if the person doesn't break any rule for 2 months, the process resets. > 3. judging > If the person in question continues to behave badly within the 2 month > period, he/she gets his/her cool down period of two weeks no access to KDE > e.V. managed infrastructure. If the CWG decides that the person in question continues to behave badly within the 2 month period, the cool down period starts. The person in question gets a period of two weeks no access to KDE e.V. managed infrastructure. > 4. After the timeout > With the timeout comes a warning that if it happens again within 2 months, > he/she will be locked out for a longer period determined by the CWG. As a > general rule of thumb, this should be at least 6 months. The board is > informed of this. > 4. Flexibility > The time-out periods as well as the 2 month periods mentioned above are at > the discretion of the CWG. If they deem the behavior bad enough to ban for a > longer time, they are free to do so. > 5. Communication > Whenever the CWG decides to ban somebody for longer than the ~two week cool > down period they have to inform the board. > 6. Oversight > From the moment a first warning is given, all communication that the CWG is > aware of related to the person in question, be it with that person, of that > person on our public channels or about that person (eg with the board or > within the CWG) needs to be preserved for audit; for a period of at least 1 > year after the last action taken against the person in question. The e.V. > Membership has the right to request an audit of these data and the actions of > the board and CWG, to be executed by up to 3 people appointed by the > membership. (This is currently already the case, all CWG communication is > stored.) > > The first place for appeal is the KDE e.V. board. They can bring the problem > to the membership, which can demand an audit of the process and decision(s). _______________________________________________ kde-community mailing list [email protected] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-community
