moderation-policy: clarification RE recertification

[refack]

Since this year will be the first time we do recertification, it's a good opportunity to better define what this entails.

[refack]

A few questions raised in the CommComm meeting:

• Do we want to do this as an individual's performance review (activity, availability, policy), or as a general approval of the mod-team for the last year?
• Do we have enough information to properly evaluate?

[Trott]

Answers are my personal opinion only and not based on any previously-reached consensus or discussion with others:

• Do we want to do this as an individual's performance review (activity, availability, policy), or as a general approval of the mod-team for the last year?

Individual performance. More than that, trust. Even if it ends up being mostly a rubber stamp, I like recertification because it guarantees the Moderation Team has the trust of both CommComm and TSC. (It requires a rejection by both CommComm and TSC to be removed from the Moderation Team prior to recertification, but it requires a rejection of only one or the other to be removed during annual recertification.)

• Do we have enough information to properly evaluate?

Sort of. There's a lot that's hidden because Moderation Team discussions are usually private. Pieces of information that folks might have that are useful:

• Activity in the moderation repo and the moderation actions documented there.
• Streamed/recorded Moderation Team meetings and minutes.

That may be enough?

[mhdawson]

I see the annual review as a checkpoint to reflect on if there have been any complaints, visible issues over the past year with respect to how the individuals have engaged. As @Trott says it is basically a checkpoint to confirm that the members still have the required trust. As such I don't think we need any more information/process etc.

[Trott]

It's also a good reminder to periodically review our Moderation Policy and adjust it to improve it (like this PR).

[bnb]

I will review today 👍