Skip to content
Merged
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
30 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
de67a3e
Add process for handling reports
keywordnew Jul 23, 2019
3a41881
Combine report handling with S1 CoC proposal
keywordnew Jul 30, 2019
0fe421d
Address comment: specify subject of reports
keywordnew Jul 30, 2019
fbbf763
Add need to review personal info storage on Github
keywordnew Jul 30, 2019
e3bf6ef
Address comment: explicitly list collecting opinions
keywordnew Jul 30, 2019
dac1d84
Address comment: allow for issues to be closed in certain conditions
keywordnew Jul 30, 2019
b9b2131
Add CPC as role
keywordnew Aug 7, 2019
25d3fd2
Add TBD: role of members
keywordnew Aug 7, 2019
e996830
Apply suggestions from review
keywordnew Sep 3, 2019
516f586
Update placeholder email
keywordnew Sep 5, 2019
b3f81e8
Use suggestions
keywordnew Sep 5, 2019
16e4431
Update README.md
keywordnew Sep 5, 2019
3e0d1a9
Update proposals/stage-1/CODE_OF_CONDUCT/HANDLING-REPORTS.md
mhdawson Sep 6, 2019
f547434
squash: align with rest of docs in proposal
mhdawson Sep 6, 2019
1d5aaf2
squash: fix typos
mhdawson Sep 6, 2019
2eef5ce
squash: fix email for coc-escalation
mhdawson Sep 6, 2019
98902f7
squash: fixup
mhdawson Sep 6, 2019
bd5837b
squash: add ref about members recusing themselves
mhdawson Sep 6, 2019
366444e
Update proposals/stage-1/CODE_OF_CONDUCT/HANDLING-REPORTS.md
mhdawson Sep 10, 2019
9671542
Update proposals/stage-1/CODE_OF_CONDUCT/HANDLING-REPORTS.md
mhdawson Sep 10, 2019
377b53e
Update proposals/stage-1/CODE_OF_CONDUCT/HANDLING-REPORTS.md
mhdawson Sep 10, 2019
6d12e32
Update proposals/stage-1/CODE_OF_CONDUCT/HANDLING-REPORTS.md
mhdawson Sep 10, 2019
37c2999
Update proposals/stage-1/CODE_OF_CONDUCT/HANDLING-REPORTS.md
mhdawson Sep 10, 2019
d475032
Update proposals/stage-1/CODE_OF_CONDUCT/HANDLING-REPORTS.md
mhdawson Sep 10, 2019
84e9406
Update proposals/stage-1/CODE_OF_CONDUCT/HANDLING-REPORTS.md
mhdawson Sep 10, 2019
f575cec
Update proposals/stage-1/CODE_OF_CONDUCT/HANDLING-REPORTS.md
mhdawson Sep 10, 2019
d84e0d3
squash: Address @kborchers comments
mhdawson Sep 10, 2019
a58aa13
Update proposals/stage-1/CODE_OF_CONDUCT/HANDLING-REPORTS.md
mhdawson Sep 12, 2019
20ea625
squash: address comments from @mcollina
mhdawson Sep 12, 2019
d72c623
Update proposals/stage-1/CODE_OF_CONDUCT/HANDLING-REPORTS.md
mhdawson Sep 17, 2019
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
37 changes: 37 additions & 0 deletions HANDLING-REPORTS.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
# Handling reports and escalation
This document describes the proposed process for handling reports and escalation, along with relevant roles in the OpenJS Foundation.

Reporting to the OpenJS Foundation either concerns a matter with the Foundation or is considered an escalation where insufficient resolution was provided by a project.

## Channels
* Email: [email protected]
* This email address is for aliasing (like [email protected]) to roles in handling reports and escalation.
* We can use groups.io
* Form: It would be easier on the reportee to have a form template to help them structure their report. The form submission could trigger an email
* Repo: openjs/moderation (not provisioned)
* A form submission could open an issue in the repo, to allow folks to discuss in context
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think opening an issue in the public is the worst possible way to report, could we remove the repo as a channel for reporting?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The comment made me think of the downside of discussing a report in the repo. There is an ask to look into any legal issues of having personal details on a Github repo.

To clarify, the moderation repo would be private. Likely with only the CPC having access. Much like the nodejs/moderation repo. Is there concern with having a reporting form create an issue in this private repo?

## Confidentiality and record-keeping
Everything reported and discussed is confidential unless explicitly stated. For any facts to be made public, the reportee’s explicit permission is needed. All reports should be recorded, together with the discussion of it. A private moderation repo would satisfy the need for recordkeeping.
## Steps/Escalation
1. A report is filed: This is the first step, mostly defined in Channels above.
2. The right people are alerted: See Roles.
3. Contact person assigned: See Roles.
4. Report is acknowledged: The contact person responds to let the reportee know that the report is being discussed.
5. Facts are gathered: Time is allocated to collect information in one place to make sure everyone involved has access.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Are dissenting views and opinions "facts"? In other words, is there a possibility here to get opinionated input from other parties involved in the subject of the report? Or is purely factual input the only sort allowed at this step?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm of the opinion that facts are the cornerstone of rendering sound decisions. But as humans are involved and CoCs can involve subjective experiences, I'd be +1 to adding explicit mention of opinions.

6. Facts are discussed: The facts are discussed in context. Also see What to look forward to for guidelines on appropriate response.
7. An action to be taken is arrived at: The action to be taken is decided by consensus.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Who can/should participate in this consensus? Everyone in the CPC, along with e.g. observers who are "free to attend meetings and participate in the work of the CPC as well as the consensus seeking process"? Or is this a decision of some smaller committee? And how about CPC members that may be closely affected by the report, are they expected to participate, or to recuse themselves?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Punting handling of the consensus process to other sections.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@keywordnew I think the discussion in the CPC meeting last week was to move all of this into https://github.com/openjs-foundation/cross-project-council/tree/master/proposals/stage-1/CODE_OF_CONDUCT. I'm just asking since there is still discussion here.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@mhdawson After that discussion, this PR was modified to add this HANDLING-REPORTS.md document to https://github.com/openjs-foundation/cross-project-council/tree/master/proposals/stage-1/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.

Sorry if I misunderstood. How can I correct it?

8. Resolution offered: The resolution is offered to the reportee by the contact person. The reportee needs to accept the resolution for the matter to be resolved. If they don’t accept, go back to step 5. If there isn't a clear way to resolve the report, the report can be reviewed by the moderation team representatives from OpenJS projects to ensure that the the action and resolution are appropriate.
The report is resolved: The report is resolved when the reportee accepts the action.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Could a report also be closed due to non-communication on behalf of the original reporter? Or if the review of step 8 indicates that all that can be done has been done? Always requiring final approval from a reporter opens up the process to some level of theoretical abuse by spamming us with reports that can't be closed.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Well spotted. Language added to address this.

## Roles
* Moderation team representatives: Each project in the CPC which has a moderation team should have representation here. https://github.com/openjs-foundation can ask these folks if any are willing to also moderate this org.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think this should be a responsibility delegated by the CPC. Especially in the case of project escalation, the CPC should/must get involved. In the most sensitive case, this might even be limited to voting members only.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

+1 to this. I'm adding a line explicitly adding the CPC.

* Ombudsperson: This person acts as an impartial intermediary between a reporter and the Foundation. They also serve to mediate between the moderation team representatives.
* Contact person: This is a sensitive matter. Each reportee should only have to become comfortable talking with 1 person who represents them to the representatives.
## Further questions
* How do we protect privacy?
* How do we investigate?
* What are the conflicts of interest?
* How to avoid conflicts of interest?
* Does this relate to the work of the Node.js and other projects’ moderation team?
## What to look forward to
* Beacon project
* Code of Conduct Project: A cross-project collaboration between multiple open source tech communities RxJS, AngularJS, Node.js, Vue.js etc to find consensus on Code of Conducts. Progress is rapid and can add definition to our own process (where possible) within 6 months. Recommend incorporating the findings and avoid duplication of effort.