I'd like to suggest that while anonymized external reporting is good, it is in the best interests of the community to be using a system that also:

1) needs to be logged into to view relevant content, with open public registration
2) Has a community-determined age limit for expiration of that content.

Without that, those types of systems can become:

re: Anonymized External Reporting, Closed Viewing, Open Public Registration
-)  A vehicle for public humiliation (chronicling arguments from IRC on the web forever, sharing links during groupthink breakdowns et al) 
-) or blacklisting ("ban this person, I found this fedora log") 

re: content expiration:
-) Prevention of users from being able to outlive their mistakes.  It is too easy for a dislocated entity to eventually become trigger happy with exiling problematic users, and I think this can detract from the purpose and nobility of the role these groups would serve.

I like the direction you guys are headed with this and support it fully, I'd just like to recommend these 2 aspects to avoid mistakes I've seen made in other places (and have even made myself at times).

We should bear in mind that while this has been a problem in Fedora for some time, not only is there all too often crossover between channels when the wrong people get into positions of authority, there can often be continued efforts towards an argument and it's not always the user.  These will improve the welcoming environment Fedora is trying to foster.

IRC arguments can become quite heated and long lasting, and this will protect the users as well as the operators during diffusion.

Good luck, and good job if you can bring this split concept to Fedora IRC governship,

--two cents

On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 8:25 PM, council <trac@fedorahosted.org> wrote:
#71: IRC SIG reform
 Reporter:  be0      |       Owner:
   Status:  new      |    Priority:  normal
Component:  General  |  Resolution:
 Keywords:           |

Comment (by bex):

 A few ideas came out of the council meeting.  Your feedback and comments
 are greatly appreciated:

 * What if we split moderation and ops duties.  Under this model, ops does
 technical work and enacts moderator decisions that require privileges as
 needed. Moderators would be drawn from ambassadors, diversity and commops.
 The groups are already charged with helping with friendliness and
 accessibility. Those groups would need to decide how to determine who is a
 moderator and for how long.

 * Assuming a moderator/ops split, ops could serve as an in the moment
 reality check for moderator decisions.

 * Consider guidelines for how to log problems and Code of Conduct
 violations.  Consider anonymized external reporting.

 * Hold annual elections (or release cycle elections) for ops.

Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/council/ticket/71#comment:7>
council <https://fedorahosted.org/council>
Fedora Council Public Tickets
council-discuss mailing list -- council-discuss@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to council-discuss-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org