Skip to content

Instantly share code, notes, and snippets.

@nebrius
Created June 30, 2017 18:25
Show Gist options
  • Star 0 You must be signed in to star a gist
  • Fork 0 You must be signed in to fork a gist
  • Save nebrius/6f8cfad621deb6d0a302b16078e7ab18 to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.
Save nebrius/6f8cfad621deb6d0a302b16078e7ab18 to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.
Escalation policy Draft
Reporting process:
1. Person files formal complaint to TSC or CommComm ("governing body" from here on out)
1.1 Uses Zendesk so submitters can track status of the complaint
1.2 Can choose which governing body to submit to in the form
1.3 Person includes their email, which the governing body will use to notify them of the decision
1.4 Shared credentials among a few people: governing body chairs, governing body board director(s), and the Foundation board chair (?)
1.5 Still unclear exactly who brings complaint to governing body, but most likely will be the chair or governing body board director(s) so they can exclude members who the complaint is against (if any) before complaint is emailed (?) to all governing body members.
2. The board director(s) that represent the governing body formally notify the board of the complaint via whatever mechanism they deem to be prudent
2.1. Person may request that the governing body anonymize the report and may instead choose to state the person's associations (a specific WG, TSC, etc). This anonymization should be done by the person specified in 1.4 who initially received the complaint.
3. Governing body reaches a decision (how do we ensure this can be done quickly in cases where there is time pressure to resolve the issue? Is email or IRC sufficient?)
4. The board director(s) that represent the governing body formally notify the board that a decision has been reached, along with a brief summary of the decision
5. The person specified in 1.4 notifies the person of the decision via email
5.1. Person may, at their discretion, choose to have the governing body make the anonymized decision public
Piggy back off of CommComm sets up moderation group, this sits on top of that. CommComm only, not TSC, in this situation. The TSC chair is required to participate, if they must recuse, then someone else from TSC. Moderation owns process so it can't be short circuited. Notes from Rust community factor heavily.
Note: complaints should go directly to process champion and both individual directors.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment