(Note, everything on this page is entirely a draft, and is not official policy.)
A community member may engage proctors on a perceived code of conduct violation by filing a bug assigned to firstname.lastname@example.org, or by sending an email to the alias. A link to list archives/etc, or IRC logs, should be provided. For IRC include the Gentoo channel name and timestamp with GMT offset.
Note: All proctors matters will be tracked in public bugs, including all communications sent in the request. The scope of proctors actions is limited to activities on public communications media, so there is no expectation of privacy around the handling of these issues.
- If a bug wasn't created by the submitter, a proctor will create it.
- Any proctor may comment on the bug to propose a resolution (using a standard template). They should also ping the other proctors in IRC on the #gentoo-proctors channel.
- After the first proctor proposes a resolution, other proctors may vote in agreement or disagreement.
- Four hours after the resolution is proposed, and after at least one other proctor has agreed with the proposal and a majority of all votes so far are in agreement, any proctor may enact the proposal.
- Alternative resolutions may be proposed at any time and voted upon, and proctors may indicate preference. These proposals must also be four hours old before they are acted upon.
- The four hour delay can be cut short if all proctors have already voted.
Any decision may be overturned by a majority of all proctors within 72 hours of being enacted.
When communicating a decision a standard template should be used, followed by any situation-specific comments at the discretion of the proctor responding.
Guidelines for Enforcement
Warnings are to be preferred when the violation was not severe, or when it is clear that the original violator has already apologized for their actions and the warning is non-repetitive in recent history.
Otherwise the bans chartered by Council should be followed on the proctors page.
The guiding principle behind bans should be to give community members an opportunity to cool off and de-escalate tensions, and not to re-escalate things if they are already de-escalating and there is a sense that the lessons are already learned. Another goal is to reinforce the sense in the community that they do not need to "fight fire with fire" in continued escalations to be taken seriously.
Note that immediate repetitions of the same violation (allowing time for communication of the original warning/ban) can be immediately escalated to the longer-duration ban. Eg, if somebody engages in harassing behavior on a list thread and is given a 7 day ban, and then on the first day back immediately resumes their behavior on the same or similar thread, the ban can be escalated directly to 30 days at the discretion of proctors, without a need for additional repetitions.
Likewise, if repetitive violations are greatly separated in time there is no requirement that the longer-duration bans be applied. For example, if a developer is given a week to cool off on a list on several occasions a year or more apart, it is up to proctors to decide whether a 30 day ban is warranted.
(Directed to submitter:) The Proctors have reviewed your request and have decided that the Gentoo Code of Conduct was not violated...
(In reply to violation on original medium:) The Proctors have decided that this post/message/etc is in violation of the Gentoo Code of Conduct and are issuing this warning...
(In reply to violation on original medium:) The Proctors have decided that this post/message/etc is in violation of the Gentoo Code of Conduct and are issuing a(n) n day ban ...