Proposal: Add a more explicit incident response lifecycle to the Moderation Policy

Commencez par Moderation-Policy.md et comparez ses sections existantes sur l’escalade, les appels et la prise en compte de l’intention avec les CNCF Incident Resolution Procedures associés. Examinez le cycle de vie de la proposition, ses ajouts concernant les conflits d’intérêts et l’absence de représailles, ainsi que les retours de la table ronde sur la modération. La tâche sera terminée lorsqu’un consensus aura été atteint et qu’un PR aura mis à jour la politique en conséquence.

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).

[!NOTE]
This proposal has a bit more ambiguity than the others, and should be considered later in the session.

The policy covers content moderation but not larger CoC concerns

The Moderation Policy handles the common cases well: inappropriate posts in a public repo, and spam. Consideration of intent, self-correction opportunities, documentation requirements, and worked scenarios are all defined. Escalation and appeal paths exist.

What's missing is a default or suggested lifecycle for reports that aren't resolved by moderating a single post. Larger-scoped CoC violations have less written guidance for us all to align against. This routinely leaves moderation team members to continually do their best to evaluate many factors at once, and the ambiguity can impact SLAs for moderation and repair.

Some gaps against the policy as written, in my opinion:

• Someone emails report@nodejs.org about an incident, pattern of behavior, a private conversation, or a serious CoC violation. We don't mention acknowledgement to the reporter or the accused.
• A report involves conflicting accounts. There is no process for resolving factual disagreements.
• The team needs to check jurisdiction: is this ours, the TSC's (PR #990), or the OpenJS CoC Team's?
• A moderator has a relationship with the accused but is not "directly involved." The recusal requirement only covers direct involvement.

I've done a bit of research and noted that other projects, in particular the CNCF, have better outlined procedures. We can mature here.

Gaps relative to CNCF

The CNCF Incident Resolution Procedures cover these cases. Not all of it applies to a volunteer team, but the structure is useful reference.

Step	CNCF	Node.js
Acknowledge receipt	Yes	Reporting channels defined, no acknowledgment step
Confirm jurisdiction	Explicit check; transfer or escalate	Not addressed (escalation/appeal paths exist but no intake check)
Investigation	Review evidence, interview witnesses	Consideration of intent only
Notify the accused	Yes, balances retaliation risk	Collaborators get a chance to self-correct; no general notification step
Interim protective measures	Explicit authorization during investigation	Temp blocks exist but not framed as interim measures
Conflict of interest	Hard/soft definitions with procedures	Recuse if "directly involved"
Communicate results	Defines what to tell reporter and accused	Not addressed
No retaliation	Explicit	Not addressed

The below here would turn into a PR against the Moderation Policy. I include it here for early feedback, and then expect to draft a PR.

Add to the Moderation Policy:

Proposed lifecycle

1. Receive and acknowledge. A moderator acknowledges receipt to the reporter.

2. Confirm jurisdiction. Is this governed by the Node.js CoC? Does the accused's role change who handles it (TSC members per PR #990)? Should this be escalated to the OpenJS CoC Team? If not ours, transfer and notify the reporter.

3. Assess interim protective measures. If there is active harm, the team may hide content, set interaction limits, or temporarily block before the investigation is complete.

[!NOTE]
This is a substantial addition, for us to consider carefully.

4. Investigate. Review available evidence. Contact the reporter for clarification. Interview witnesses where appropriate. Consider intent per existing policy. Write down our evidentiary threshold, per comments in https://github.com/openjs-foundation/cross-project-council/issues/1701#issuecomment-4063822741

5. Notify the accused. Inform them a report was received. Give them an opportunity to respond. Do not disclose the reporter's identity without consent.

6. Decide. Determine action, referencing the enforcement ladder in the Code of Conduct. Document the decision and rationale in nodejs/moderation.

7. Communicate results. Inform the reporter of the outcome. Inform the accused of any action taken and the appeals process.

Conflict of interest

A moderator has a conflict of interest if they are personally involved (reporter, accused, or witness), have a close personal or professional relationship with someone involved, or have another interest that would affect their impartiality. Conflicted moderators disclose and recuse.

No retaliation

Retaliation against someone who reports a CoC concern in good faith or provides information during an investigation is itself a CoC violation.

Not included

This proposal does not cover specific timelines (see SLA proposal), but the two proposals would intertwine and be stewarded by a chair per that proposal.

Prior art

• CNCF Incident Resolution Procedures
• Python PSF Enforcement Procedures
• Contributor Covenant 3.0 "Reporting an Issue" section

Action items

• Feedback period before and during Collab Summit
• PR to add the lifecycle to the Moderation Policy, where more consensus explored

---

Assisted by: Claude Opus

---