= Quick Summary =
(1) Looking at CoC from 3 views: reporter, reported, reviewer
(2) Answering three questions:
- What's helpful for reviewer
- How to protect anonymity of reporter
- What does an "end result" look like
To pick up this discussion both from our FAD and also from today's
meeting, we wanted to start the discussion about one of our oldest
tickets, about guidelines for reporting CoC violations.
To summarize what we're trying to get at, we want to figure out what
kinds of things are important for all three involved groups:
(1) The reporter
(2) The reported
(3) The reviewer
To help get at these things, we came up with three questions at the last
meeting to consider and try answering to help us get at the point of
what we want our guidelines to cover and help solve:
(1) What is helpful for someone writing a report to enable the
reader(s) to solve the problem?
(2) What is important to protect the anonymity of the reporter? How
should reports be considered for privacy?
(3) What kind of end results to a report do we want to consider?
What do you all think is important to consider here or what do you think
we should be covering with this? To help get us started, here's some of
my answers to these questions:
(1) A reviewer needs to understand what the problem is and why it is
causing a problem. If possible, having documented evidence of a dispute
or a concern is needed, like log files or screenshots. The reviewer
needs to be neutral and as much as possible, not be biased towards
either the reporter or the reported.
(2) The reporter's anonymity should always be a first concern and
private options to make reports should be available. This could be a
private ticket or a thread to explain their problem to a small, select
group of people. The reporter's name or specific details about them
should never be shared outside of the initial group reviewing the report
(unless the reporter consents to otherwise). The team reviewing should
be as small as can be justified.
(3) The key part of the end results is making the reporter feel like
their voice is being acknowledged and heard by making the report,
assuming it is valid. Having clear guidelines for actions or steps to
consider for how the report is handled and what possible outcomes of a
report are would be helpful for this, so a regular procedure can be
followed for every report.
What do you all think?
Justin W. Flory