Change Details

# Summary of discussion so far This task was originally filed as "Create Wikimedia equivalent of Rust's Moderation subteam", suggesting that the Wikimedia process could be similar. The Rust community has support for the [Rust Moderation team]( https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/1068-rust-governance.md#moderation-team). The Rust core team lends their authority about issue/pull request access out to a Moderation team, who then uses that authority to remove issue/pull request access. #ArchCom has some authority to lend in this area (+2 access in particular). In [the mw.org +2 guidelines](https://mediawiki.org/wiki/plus2), the following authority is described: > Anyone can propose a revocation discussion, the Wikimedia ArchCom can sign off on a revocation for technical or social reasons, and anyone authorized by Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees (e.g. WMF's Director of Technical Operations) can sign off on a revocation for emergency security matters or obvious policy breaches. The Rust terminology of "subteam" suggests lower rank, which isn't what the #ArchCom believes should occur. In particular, the Rust process describes this process: >One key difference from the other subteams is that the moderation team does not have a leader. Its members[...] should be community members who have demonstrated the highest standard of discourse and maturity. To limit conflicts of interest, the moderation subteam should not include any core team members. However, the subteam is free to consult with the core team as it deems appropriate. This aspect seems uncontroversial. However, the redacted portion is more controversial: > [Moderation team] members are chosen directly by the core team Discussion on this task made it clear that that #ArchCom isn't welcome to assume this authority, and that #ArchCom is not comfortable trying. The [Code of Conduct](https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct/Draft) discussion was well underway before this task was filed, and there was already a selection process that doesn't involve #ArchCom. # Questions remaining to answer * What support should #ArchCom provide to the [Code of Conduct](https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct/Draft) and supporting committee? * If the Code of Conduct committee agrees to eject someone from our community (e.g. remove [Gerrit +2 support](https://mediawiki.org/wiki/plus2)), should #ArchCom support that without question, or be open to appeal from the banned party? * Will ArchCom members be expected to discontinue backchannel Wikimedia software discussions with the banned party?

# SummaBrief history of discussion so farthis task: This task was originally f* 2016-02-11: Filed as "Create Wikimedia equivalent of Rust's Moderation subteam", suggesting that the Wikimedia process could be similar. The Rust community has support for the [Rust Moderation team]( ([Rust Moderation team description](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/1068-rust-governance.md#moderation-team)) https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/1068-rust-governance.md#moderation-team). The Rust core team lends their authority about issue/pull request access out to a Moderation team, who then uses that authority to remove issue/pull request access. #ArchCom has some authority to lend in this area (+2 access in particular). In [the mw.org +2 guidelines](https://mediawiki.org/wiki/plus2), the following authority is described:* 2016-02-12 through 2016-03-24: Discussion > Anyone can propose a revocation discussion, the Wikimedia ArchCom can sign off on a revocation for technical or social reasons, and anyone authorized by Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees (e.g. WMF's Director of Technical Operations) can sign off on a revocation for emergency security matters or obvious policy breaches. The Rust terminology of "subteam" suggests lower rank* 2016-03-25: Title changed to "ArchCom: Support Code-of-Conduct committee's authority to eject CoC violators from the Wikimedia development community?", which isn't what the #ArchCom believes should occur. In particular, the Rust process describes this process:suggesting a connection to [our rules for giving +2 in Gerrit](https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Gerrit/%2B2) >One key difference from the other subteams is that the moderation team does not have a leader. Its members[...] should be community members who have demonstrated the highest standard of discourse and maturity. To limit conflicts of interest, the moderation subteam should not include any core team members. However, the subteam is free to consult with the core team as it deems appropriate. This aspect seems uncontroversial. However, the redacted portion is more controversial: > [Moderation team] members are chosen directly by the core team Discussion on this task made it clear that that #ArchCom isn't welcome to assume this authority* 2016-03-26 through 2016-03-28: Discussion, and that #ArchCom is not comfortable trying. The [Code of Conduct](https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct/Draft) discussion was well underway before this task was filedculminating in a request to close this * 2016-03-30 through 2016-04-26: No discussion on this Phab task * 2016-05-02: Title changed back to "Create Wikimedia equivalent of Rust's Moderation subteam", and there was already a selection process that doesn't involve #ArchCom. # Questions remaining to answermarked as invalid. * What support should #ArchCom provide to the [Code of Conduct](https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Code_of_Conduct/Draft) and supporting committee? * If the Code of Conduct committee agrees to eject someone from our community (e.g. remove [Gerrit +2 support](https://mediawiki.org/wiki/plus2)), should #ArchCom support that without questionThe various rephrasings weren't seen as helpful. Per request at T126605#2021762, or be open to appeal from the banned party? * Will ArchCom members be expected to discontinue backchannel Wikimedia software discussions with the banned party?further conversation will happen at <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Code_of_Conduct/Draft>