[kde-community] Stormy Days proposal accepted

[Jos Poortvliet]

Dear KDE community,

An e.V. vote supported the our Stormy Days proposal and there haven't been 
any strong objections here either. I'll assume the CWG will implement this - 
but hopefully, this proposal won't actually be used much.

FYI, the proposal that was agreed upon: 

*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 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). 

========= End of proposal ============
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-community/attachments/20131217/b3019b2a/attachment.sig>