OK, let’s continue the discussion we ended here then 😉
As you’ve suggested, it’s not a strict necessity to vote on this for it to happen right now, which proves (once again) the good faith of our current Moderation WS.
A proposal/vote would rather be a way to make this transparency principle a duty of the Moderation WS which then could not simply remove/alter the logs or ban users without such checks in place. And if they did, the community would have a ground to demand for it to be restored.
In addition I still think we have to codify that the Moderation WS has the power to remove any user, even if they are an active contributor and effectively terminate their work relation with the DAO if they have broken the Code of Conduct justifying a permanent ban. We might even add that they have to notify the Workstream Leader(s) in which the active contributor was working, so that they can work out the details of the termination.
Again, all these things happen naturally right now with the team we have elected, but this reach and the consequences aren’t clearly established. And if a worker decided to sue the DAO/some of its participants for a wrongful termination, I think the first point a lawyer will try to establish is who requested the termination and did they have the right to do it. If nothing specifies that Moderators can take these actions, then it can be a liability for the DAO to give them this power.
On a side note, this also why I wanted this in the Code of Conduct, so users/contributors would have to agree to these terms before they start participating… but I suppose it can also work as an addendum to the Monderation WS attributions, as long as it’s written somewhere, I’d consider we have lowered the risks of this becoming a liability for the DAO.

Lets seperate this out a bit. (i have trouble otherwise) hehe.

1. Ban - contributor. this code is to make it clear that the Mod team (or at least me specifically as lead) has the ability/duty?/power to remove any contributor. (if it doesnt, or isnt clear, def highlight that section where it is vague and tag me and pastaghost)
2. I brought up the legal side a bit. but talked to pasta and realized that we arent ‘public’ persons, but all private, hidden behind fake names. So, it would be more diff to do such (?)
3. my thought would be its not the Mod WS …setting up the logs,

with the logs being public there will be some odd things coming up. IE: if someone reports a dm spammer, and we ban that spammer, thats straight forward. However, is someone else going to question this action?
I just see some ‘blowback’ from things. we’ll see how it goes 🙂 i setup the cat, and moving in the log maker, that discloses reason nicely. (the normal ban process, does NOT allow reasons to be shown, so some might not appear. the Reasons are using one bot, that requires a reason for every action. (which is why i implemented it, when i first started being mod)

giantkin:

Ban - contributor. this code is to make it clear that the Mod team (or at least me specifically as lead) has the ability/duty?/power to remove any contributor. (if it doesnt, or isnt clear, def highlight that section where it is vague and tag me and pastaghost)

It highlights the consequence for the user vs. the community (removed from all platforms). Not the consequence it has on their work relation with our DAO, as contributor. It doesn’t tell them they are not going to keep getting paid as they used to and that their services are no longer required.
We agreed with in the previous thread that it is a de facto termination of the work relation (no way to collaborate in the organization without access to its members) and nobody else seemed to disagree. So let’s make it a written rule for our DAO, and since it relate to an action taken by the Moderation WS, it should be in their written attributions.
giantkin:

I brought up the legal side a bit. but talked to pasta and realized that we arent ‘public’ persons, but all private, hidden behind fake names. So, it would be more diff to do such (?)

Legal actions have already been taken against DAOs/DAO members (most recently OOki, just to be clear it’s example of an alleged scam done by the DAO, not a contributor suing them, but still a legal action taken against a DAO). Despite crypto people not agreeing, the judicial system in the US seems pretty keen on pursuing participants (identified or not) in these cases, and I doubt it will be different in most places.
In all cases, I don’t think we need to gamble with this specific aspect and rely on (relative) anonymity, if we intend to terminate people this way, where is the harm in putting it on paper? So anyone who joins our organization knows this is a reality and they are aware it is a valid cause for termination if they are a contributor. This way at least they won’t be able to use this action to pretend it is a wrongful termination.
giantkin:

my thought would be its not the Mod WS …setting up the logs,

As long as whoever is in charge of setting them up are not allowed to restrict access to the people we decide to give access to here (completely public or just active contributors), I’m fine with it.
giantkin:

with the logs being public there will be some odd things coming up. IE: if someone reports a dm spammer, and we ban that spammer, thats straight forward. However, is someone else going to question this action?

Well the questions are part of the transparency process. If it’s really an overwhelming amount of work to answer when a ban isn’t clear to someone you can always bring it up again and adapt (same if it’s used as a way spammers use to circumvent moderation). If only active contributors get access to it, I doubt you will get a lot of requests, I don’t think we have a lot of scammers within our ranks who would try to use these logs to sharpen their spam bot strategies 😆
giantkin:

I just see some ‘blowback’ from things. we’ll see how it goes 🙂 i setup the cat, and moving in the log maker, that discloses reason nicely. (the normal ban process, does NOT allow reasons to be shown, so some might not appear. the Reasons are using one bot, that requires a reason for every action. (which is why i implemented it, when i first started being mod)

Seems fair. Thanks for setting it up!