[Mod-discuss] Issue 210: Reinstatement

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

Stephen writes:

>   * 4.2: "Requests for reinstatement may be made only a year after the
>     initial decision, and then only annually afterwards" - anyone can
>     ask, any time, I think we want to say that decision makers can choose
>     to take no action for a year after a decision, rather than say that
>     such a request can't be made. Maybe also s/year/4 months/ as I
>     don't see why a year is a good choice and 3 times a year matches
>     the IETF cadence for various things and should be long enough for
>     an otherwise reasonable person to have re-discovered "comity":-)
>

There are really two issues here:

  * How long is a reasonable period of time before requesting
    reconsideration?

The reason we wrote in one year was that was what BCP 83 has today.  
Conveniently, Marshall exposed the reasoning for the 1 year ban:

>     Q: Isn't a year too long?
>
>     A: No.
>
>        An initial PR-action is not undertaken lightly.  It is approved
>        only after a period of substantive consideration and community
>        review.  If a PR-action is approved, then this indicates that a
>        serious situation has arisen.

These statements still loosely hold, albeit not quite in the same way.  
Any ban that is greater than 14 days requires community notification, 
which can still invoke consideration, but not approval.  Furthermore, I 
would be concerned about a process attack on administrators. They 
already have enough to do.

The second point Stephen raises is this:

  * Can those who are banned can be directed to not request
    reconsideration for some period of time, or should administrators be
    admonished not to entertain such requests?

I would suggest both are possible, because I think it's good to set 
behavioral expectations.  I can form a PR for that if you like, but it 
is possible that this could be handled in the procedures document.

Eliot