Hacktoberfest 2026：維護者為十月標記出來的 issue，仍然開放、適合新手。 瀏覽 Hacktoberfest issue

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

未關閉
  • 哪裡不對？
#1,096 0 則留言 2 個 reaction 已指派 0 人 在 GitHub 檢視

還沒有人認領這個 Issue。

評估

難度
5/5
預估耗時
一週以上
新手友好度
30/100
Issue 類型
文件
描述清晰度
基本清楚
活躍度
活躍
領域
documentation

研究方向

從 Moderation-Policy.md 開始，將其中現有的升級、申訴和意圖考量部分與連結的 CNCF Incident Resolution Procedures 進行比較。審閱提案中新增的生命週期、利益衝突和禁止報復內容，以及 moderation 圓桌討論的回饋。達成共識並由一個 PR 相應更新 policy，即視為完成。

由索引模型根據 Issue 內容生成。

描述

tsc-agenda

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 [email protected] 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

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

主要語言
JavaScript
星號
202
分支
183
平均合併
13 天 12 小時
30 天內合併 PR
2

環境準備

從這裡開始

  1. 先讀完整個 Issue，再讀專案的貢獻指南。
  2. 在 Issue 下留言說明你要接手 —— 這能避免兩個人做同樣的事。
  3. Fork 儲存庫，在一個分支上完成修改。
  4. 送出 Pull Request，並在描述裡引用這個 Issue 編號。

nodejs/admin 的其他 Issue

查看 nodejs/admin 的全部 Issue

相似的 Issue

更多 JavaScript Issue

把新 issue 寄到你的電子郵件信箱

精選適合新手參與的 GitHub issue 摘要。