[kde-community] Voting proposal: dealing with stormy days in our community

[Marta Rybczynska]

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).