Re: Appeal procedure for DAM actions
On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 11:27:35PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> One of the things that emerged from the recent discussions around DAM
> actions is that we are missing a way to review or appeal DAM's decision.
> Currently the only way to do this is running a full-featured GR, with all
> the negative side effects such a process has.
>
> While a GR is a constitutional right, and the procedure we lay out here does
> NOT take that away, we feel there is a need for a less drastic procedure
> that would allow double-checking of DAM actions without escalating into a
> project-wide dispute.
Hello,
many thanks for working on an appeals process on a "lower" level
than a full GR; I appreciate that very much. IMHO there is one
design flaw in the voting process though, that could (doesn't
have to, but could) lead to a significant bias against the
appealer, so I think this flaw needs be addressed before
the new rules are actually applied. For details, please see
below.
> 4. NM Committee review
> ----------------------
> The NMC has 7 days to review the received material and discuss the matter in
> private. They are expected not to solicit further input, as this is not an
> inquiry but a peer review of the DAM decision.
I'm not sure whether I understand correctly what exactly is meant
by "[The members of the NMC] are expected not to solicit further
input" - does that mean that the members of the NMC are not
allowed to ask questions about facts outside/above those
explicitly presented by DAM and those contained in the written
appealer statement, i.e. the NMC members are forbidden to do any
sort of research about the situation on their own? If yes, that
would seem like an inappropriate limitation to me.
> 5. NM-Committee vote
> --------------------
> After 7 days discussion, or earlier if unanimously agreed by the NMC,
> NM-Frontdesk will ask the secretary to conduct a secret, 3-day-long vote,
> with the following options:
>
> 1. Uphold the decision of the DAMs
> 2. Overturn the decision of the DAMs
>
> Committee members otherwise involved in a case must abstain.
> DAM members are not allowed to partake in the vote.
>
> A simple majority decides the vote; in the event of a tie, the decision is
> not overturned.
>
> Abstained or absent votes are not counted. If more than half of the NMC
> (excluding DAM) abstain or do not vote, the decision is not overturned.
This rule can lead to a significant bias of the process results
against the appealer. Imagine the situation that we have 20
people (including DAM) in the NMC, so 17 people are allowed to
vote. Of these 17 people, 9 cast a vote, 8 vote for overturning
the original decision, one person votes against overturning it,
i.e. we have a result of ~88% to ~11% for overturning the
original DAM decision and the expulsion gets reversed.
Now lets assume that the one person who voted against overturning
the original decision doesn't cast a vote. The same 8 people as
before vote the same as before, so we get a result of 100% for
reversing the expulsion, but suddenly simply by the one person who
has beforehand voted _against_ a reversal choosing not to cast a
vote, the result of the vote is inversed and the appealer is
expelled even though there has been an unanimous vote that he
should stay a DD, so this rule can clearly cause completely bogus
results.
In previous discussions about a GR to overturn a DAM decision
some people have expressed the sentiment that even though they
personally thought that a specific DAM decision was wrong, they
wouldn't vote in a GR to overturn this decision because that
could be be interpreted as a signal of general distrust in DAM
that they didn't want to send. The same social effect can also
happen within the NMC and make people abstain from their vote
with the intention of staying neutral on the matter, but as shown
above, abstaining is not a neutral action but biases the result
against the appealer, and this is IMHO a serious flaw. The
smaller the number of people in the NMC, the higher is the chance
that the decision of a single NMC member to abstain from the vote
causes a bogus result. Therefore the clause "If more than half
of the NMC (excluding DAM) abstain or do not vote, the decision
is not overturned" would IMHO need to be removed completely from
the rules.
Regards,
Karsten
--
Gem. Par. 28 Abs. 4 Bundesdatenschutzgesetz widerspreche ich der Nutzung
sowie der Weitergabe meiner personenbezogenen Daten für Zwecke der
Werbung sowie der Markt- oder Meinungsforschung.
Reply to: