Sure. I've already started efforts to increase the moderation team's internal transparency, both for historic reasons and new potential team members. As for the public decisions, this still requires two questions answered:

• How do we protect the individuals affected by the moderation action? This involves privacy questions, potential victims, and also not becoming a permanent public wall of shame
• How do we ensure that publishing moderation decisions does not result in uninvolved people voicing their opinion and re-hashing everything?

In reply to @raitobezarius:matrix.org
I don't want to see you anymore, I will ban you now.

but not received any recourse

this is because by default the moderation team acts in private. The moderation team often times reaches out to talk with individuals about problematic behavior, but ideally this is rarely visible to the public. (In our community currently, public=drama)

In reply to @piegames:matrix.org

Sure. I've already started efforts to increase the moderation team's internal transparency, both for historic reasons and new potential team members. As for the public decisions, this still requires two questions answered:

• How do we protect the individuals affected by the moderation action? This involves privacy questions, potential victims, and also not becoming a permanent public wall of shame
• How do we ensure that publishing moderation decisions does not result in uninvolved people voicing their opinion and re-hashing everything?

How do we protect the individuals affected by the moderation action?

Justify decisions properly, ideally referencing the CoC. Make sure for the entire team to reach consensus on harder decisions and label it as such.

In the end, the moderation team holds a lot of power and is therefore also accountable for its actions. This also means that just like any other team it should be open for feedback to some degree. A decision log means nothing if can't be responded to.

In reply to @jonringer:matrix.org
To be clear, I'm very thankful of all the effort that the Moderation Team puts into keeping day-to-day Nix workflows civil.

My concern is that even thought I don't align with srid on everything he did or say. As a former member of the US Air Force, being left-of-center on personal liberties, but right-of-center on cultural norms. I could have as easily been labeled a "bigot" and "fascist" just as easily. And I think his "why is my personal life your concern" argument had merit. He had been a contributor in the nix and haskell spaces for years prior, and his personal views were not much of an issue. Most of the "why are you being such a bigot" antagonism was him fighting the perceived "you are an enemy of the state". And to tomberek's point earlier, there have been other individuals who have blantantly been verbally harassing others with "F you's", which is in clear contradiction of several of the CoC clauses; but not received any recourse.

In reply to @infinisil:matrix.org

How do we protect the individuals affected by the moderation action?

Justify decisions properly, ideally referencing the CoC. Make sure for the entire team to reach consensus on harder decisions and label it as such.

In the end, the moderation team holds a lot of power and is therefore also accountable for its actions. This also means that just like any other team it should be open for feedback to some degree. A decision log means nothing if can't be responded to.