Proposal: Create a yearly moderation team chair role

Commencez par examiner Moderation-Policy.md et les issues liées à la politique de modération, en particulier les propositions concernant le SLA et les permissions. Le travail nécessite d’abord de parvenir à un consensus sur la nécessité du rôle de chair et de se mettre d’accord sur les modalités de son élection et de la gestion des vacances; s’il est accepté, le travail sera considéré comme terminé lorsque le premier chair sera élu et que le rôle sera ajouté à Moderation-Policy.md via une PR.

Part of the moderation policy review framed by openjs-foundation/summit#511, for discussion at the Moderation Roundtable on October 1 (if not resolves to consensus prior).

Shared responsibility has meant no one is responsible

The moderation team operates as equal peers. No one is designated to keep things moving. The results are visible:

• A self-nomination sat for 7 months.
• Monthly TSC reports are not being produced.
• Annual recertification has lapsed. (A subject for another proposal, perhaps)
• Proposed SLAs (see https://github.com/nodejs/admin/issues/1093) need someone watching whether they are being met.

Propose a chair whose job is to expedite

The chair coordinates the team's operational commitments. They do not lead investigations, override decisions, or speak for the team on any case.

The chair expedites:

• Monitors whether SLAs are being met and follows up when they are not
• Ensures the monthly TSC report is produced (this may require separate tooling investment)
• Initiates the annual recertification process in coordination with the TSC
• Drives the onboarding checklist when a new member is approved, unless designated to another member
• Serves as default point of contact for the TSC, CPC, and OpenJS Foundation on moderation logistics

The chair does not:

• Have a casting vote or veto on enforcement decisions
• Direct the outcome of any investigation
• Hold additional permissions beyond what any other moderator holds (per https://github.com/nodejs/admin/issues/1092)

Prior art

The Python PSF Code of Conduct Working Group designates chairs whose responsibilities include leading recertification, facilitating meetings, and ensuring the group delivers on its obligations to the PSF Board. Chairs are operational facilitators, not decision-makers.

The CNCF CoC Committee relies on Linux Foundation staff for operational coordination. We do not have equivalent staff support, which makes a volunteer chair role more necessary.

Election and term

The chair is elected yearly, tied to the annual recertification cycle:

1. Recertification completes first. The team knows who opted in and was recertified.
2. Any recertified member may self-nominate or nominate another (with consent). Nominations collected within 7 days.
3. Consensus-seeking votes. Concerns escalated to the TSC.
4. One-year term, starting at recertification, ending at the next.

If the chair does not recertify, the role is vacated automatically.

Vacancy

In the event of a vacancy, the team operates as peers, as we currently do, and report this gap to the TSC.

Open questions

• Is this role necessary, or can the team coordinate effectively without it? History would suggest the role is needed.

Action items

• Consensus on whether to create the role
• If accepted: elect the first chair
• Add the chair role to the Moderation Policy via PR

---

Assisted by: Claude Opus

---