improve initial notice process?

[tieguy]

In section "Excuse", any random person can initiate a 30 day window for termination by alleging a CoC violation, which is pretty harsh! Going to be lots of fairly reasonable lawyers who would be worried that this essentially allows a DDOS (repeated filings of complaints), or worse, that if the notice is given in some way that does not reach the right level of corporate attention (e.g., goes to the wrong inbox), will create a lot of surprises.

Couple ways that this could be tightened to improve predictability for license users while still allowing good faith complaints:

1. Require the complaint to be made by a contributor; and/or
2. Require the complaint to be submitted to the CoC Committee as well as to "you" (which would have the bonus of being consistent with "Enforcing the ml5.js Code of Conduct within the community" in the CoC itself).

(Probably more; will add if I think of them.)

[kemitchell]

As of fa9b3c0:

Excuse

If anyone notifies you in writing that you have not complied with Notices, ....

If anyone notifies you in writing that you have not complied with the Code of Conduct, ....

If someone sends you a message in writing, but you actually have complied with Notices or CoC, does that still trigger the termination process?

[tieguy]

Is that the link you intended to use, @kemitchell? Doesn't seem to contain the quoted text.

Re your question ("does that still trigger"), I agree that this is unclear. See also #21.

[kemitchell]

The link is to current HEAD on main. Looks like GitHub auto-links it to a diff view of the commit, rather than the tree. Click "Browe files" and you'll get there.

[tieguy]

On further re-reading: are you arguing that "notifies you... that you have not complied" means that a notice of non-compliance that is incorrect (i.e., it claims non-compliance, but you are actually in compliance) does not trigger Excuse, because you have in fact complied?

I can see the linguistic argument for it, but in the case where compliance is extremely grey (as will be the case with most CoC violations) and I was evaluating this for a good-faith client I would still want something much more clear. I will sleep on it and see if I can come up with something simple that also addresses #21.

[mwweinberg]

I like both 1 and 2 in the original suggestions. Upon reflection I suppose I have been reading "anyone" as "anyone with a legally relevant opinion because they have rights licensed by this license". That is something that we should clarify.

As for dual notice requirement, I think it will help the CoC Committee stay on top of disputes as early as possible. I suppose that there could be a point where the volume of disputes is so large that the CoC Committee could regret that provision, but that feels like a success problem that it would be happy to deal with.

[kemitchell]

I like both 1 and 2 in the original suggestions. Upon reflection I suppose I have been reading "anyone" as "anyone with a legally relevant opinion because they have rights licensed by this license". That is something that we should clarify.

Agreed. I don't think that follows from the text.

[tieguy]

I'm not sure that last part should follow from the text; someone can presumably be protected as a participant by the CoC (say, you're a surveilled target) without having "rights licensed by this license".

So perhaps the right route is something like #2 - complaint is submitted to the CoC Committee and the licensee, regardless of who submits the complaint?

[mwweinberg]

I hadn't fully thought about that before. I'm sympathetic to that fact pattern, but also wonder if there is value to requiring a contributor to sign off before a complaint makes it to the CoC Committee. I'd love to hear from some of the other team mates on this question. Like some of the others, I think it ultimately comes down to balance that will need to be set somewhat more collectively.