User:Barkeep49/UCoC Enforcement

This represents only my thinking on the date of my last edit and is not reflective of any work by the Universal Code of Conduct drafting committee or the thoughts of any of its other members. Also all of these are only partially complete with important details/definitions still needing to be made (or to have a process for how those decisions will be made).

Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee
A universal code of conduct coordinating committee (UCCCC) will be formed. The membership of this committee will be designed following ratification of the Enforcement Mechanism but at least 2/3 of its members will be elected.

Project enforcement
All communities will be expected to have mechanisms for enforcing the Universal Code of Conduct. This will include a designated noticeboard (which may also handle other issues - i.e. a generic Administrator's Noticeboard) and a secondary enforcement mechanism to handle issues which the community has been unable to handle, including administrator misconduct, or which involves private information.

This secondary enforcement mechanism will be one or more of the following methods to be decided by each community. If no community consensus is agreed upon, it will default to UCCCC discretion.
 * 1) An arbitration committee This Arbitration Committee may be specific to the project or cross-project. In order to be eligible for an Arbitration Committee the project(s) will need to be large enough for such an committee to be effective. It is expected that Arbitration Committees are democratically elected.
 * 2) Administrative panel Issue specific panels of 3-7 administrators from the project(s) will be formed as necessary. These panels may be specific to a project or cross-project. In order to be eligible for an Administrative Panel the the project(s) will need to be large enough for such an committee to be effective. A mechanism for determining when to use an administrative panel and for selecting administrators will be required for projects choosing this option. If no mechanism for accepting cases and/or selecting of administrators is adopted by the project(s) they will use a default process that has been designed by the UCCCC.
 * 3) Professional decision makers 1-3 native language speakers will be hired to professionally adjudicate issues. In order to be eligible for professional decision makers, the project will need to be below a designated size.
 * 4) UCCCC discretion The UCCCC may choose how to handle an issue. This may include choosing to hear the issue themselves or appointing a panel. If they chose to appoint a panel, they will retain discretion over its size and membership (i.e. may choose to appoint administrators from the project, administrators or editors from multiple projects, have a mixture of volunteer and professional members, etc)

Affiliate enforcement
Affiliates will designate an enforcement mechanism that is one or more of the following.... More options needed
 * 1) Affiliate board The board of the affiliate, or a designated board sub-committee, will be responsible for hearing UCoC enforcement requests

Reporting
All projects will be expected to have a link on each page informing editors of how they may report a violation of the UCoC. This may include a reporting wizard to help users report to the correct place based on the policies and practices of that project.

All affiliates will be expected to have a clearly visible reporting form. This form will be linked on every page of the Affiliates website and a link to the form, or paper copies of the form, will also be easily available at any in person events.

Training
The UCCCC will coordinate and advise the Wikimedia Foundation on how to best provide opportunities for volunteer training in order to increase local capacity for dealing with conflict and being able to enforce the UCoC.

UCCCC Jurisdiction
The UCCCC will have jurisdiction:
 * Over projects which have chosen to grant it discretion for handling issues
 * For determining processes as specified in this policy
 * For coordinating and liaising between projects and with the Wikimedia foundation as specified in this policy
 * For ensuring all projects have a reporting mechanism which satisfies this policy
 * Reviewing allegations of systemic issues with UCoC enforcement and where the secondary enforcement mechanism has proven unwilling or incapable of addressing those issues. The UCCCC may not delegate this power. When systemic failures of UCoC enforcement are found to have occurred, the UCCCC will have discretion about the appropriate remedy for such issues
 * Handling issues referred to them by a secondary UCoC enforcement mechanism. The UCCCC may decide whether or not to accept a referral.
 * In determining its procedures, provided they are consistent with this policy.

Except when noted above the UCCCC will have no jurisdiction over projects.

Ratification
I am very much in the conceptual phase with this, but I am thinking something along the lines of approval/ratification by X numbers of groups. For instance: approval by 2 out of 3 by projects, affiliates, and editors. Projects could also be broken up into small categories, for instance, small, medium, and large projects. What constitutes approval by a group? That too would need to be worked out.

Amending
Also don't have idea here but perhaps something like the same as the ratification process, or by a 3/4 vote of the UCCCC with the opportunity for negative approval by groups (i.e. projects/editors/affiliates would have to explicitly disapprove of the amendment for it to not take effect).