[anti-abuse-wg] 2013-01 Discussion Period extended until 26 June 2013 (Openness about Policy Violations)

Hi Sander,

> Usually I would agree with you and keep operational stuff out of policy-land, but in this case I think having a community-defined policy on openness / stats about how the NCC is handling violations of the policies *we* defined is better.

just to be clear: piggybacking this on a broader proposal seems
sensible to me, for a standalone it's too much process IMHO.

> >>> -new section 2.0 and consequent renumbering of the other sections
> > 
> > This part is worrying. First because it defers details to the implementation
> > and second because it suggests to give the reporting party unconditional
> > access to an unspecified level of detail.
> 
> Can you suggest text for where the limits should be? I would personally agree to a very limited level of detail, but I agree that this is nog clear in the current proposal text.

I have a hard time proposing text because despite my own potential
curiosity or potential role as a stakeholder (probably in the
legal sense of the word), I do not believe that there's a good case
to treat the reporter special.  A ticket number that is mapped to
'in progress' or 'closed' would likely be sufficient.

> >  What's the legitimate interest
> > of the reporting party in monitoring the progress?
> 
> In the current situation reporting parties don't see anything, which gives
> the feeling that all such reports disappear into a black hole. If we want

We've heard it being seen this way. And while (see above), I personally
might have some sympathy for that frustration, I do not see the disclosure
of investigation details as a cure.

> to keep (or restore) community involvement in the care-taking of our shared
> resources then showing those that care enough to report problems that we
> (community+NCC) take their input seriously is important. We need to provide

So, we delegated the day to day care taking to the NCC and hat's where the
details belong.  If anybody cares enough they will check the status of
a particular object and either see a change or not.  If there's no
change (yet), the ticket status will show it's ongoing.  The oversight
would start looking at the numbers: total time until ticket closed
and maybe amount of reports resulting in no action.

-Peter