Re: Community transparency

I think Ian's comments make a lot of sense.

On distributing conflict resolution/sanctions:
I basically agree. I wonder if having juries/panels of active mb-users or
auto-editors when it's thought sanctions need to be taken would work. It's
also worth acknowledging some of the potential drawbacks of a more
procedural, distributed approach. We've just got rid of the style council
in favour of a BDFL that has resulted in much greater throughput of style
issues, with a consistent arbiter who isn't hampered by the rules. That's
not to say we shouldn't move as Ian suggests but to help weigh the
arguments (I'm sure there are others).

On reporting:
again, I agree. two or three confirmed reports (perhaps more for newbies or
if they all come along at once) and then like a criminal record they
disappear from public eventually. Make it clear to the offender at each
case what the process will be and the consequences of further offences,
including that their actions will be publicised. Report the actions taken
in response. Should there be different classes of offence with different
periods of publicity (and possible sanctions)? e.g. not leaving an edit
note, pretty minor, engaging in personal attacks or creating multiple
accounts to vote more serious.

We should also make it much easier for people to report problems - to even
know this is possible. (I'm pretty sure reosarevok wrote this somewhere
recently. CoC debate?)  They should also be reassured that if it's for
something minor it won't result in drastic action.

Just my thoughts

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-devel