I'm putting on my admin and IRC channel op hats, and trying to figure out
how this proposal makes those jobs easier or different. I think there are
reasonable ideas in this proposal, but the second level escalation path
should follow inside of the appropriate local scopes.
I'm cautious about explicitly assigning a global ban role to WMF as a part
of a community policy; having WMF police the community is a cause of
concern after WMF's previous actions like Superprotect. I have heard very
mixed signals from WMF on this point which makes me think that WMF has
divergent views among the staff.
Generally, I'm not seeing that this proposal in its current form is
valuable in the policy sense. It might do better as an essay about social
principles and advice about possible escalation paths. I do think this
proposal helps us along the road to a global friendly spaces policy in the
sense that the general outline is well organized.
I like the point someone made in this discussion about the distiction
between legislating policy and making social change. I think that what is
needed is the latter, and that the latter is a more complex conversation to
have. I think that we need to figure out the desired social end state, then
work backwards and figure out which tools should be used to enact change;
policies are probably a part of the solution, but only a part.
Pine