On 2020/09/04 18:32, Georg Koppen wrote:
Taylor Yu:
[ ... ]
June 2020
The Council reviewed an existing community health concern in the light of new information, and began to draft a statement for internal communication.
The Council reviewed existing practices in choosing to reject bad relays.
Which practices are those? Like what did you actually review? Could you elaborate as well on why policies for rejecting bad relays has been a matter of the Community Council?
Hello there!
The discussion within the Community Council started around the time of the relay operators meeting in December 2019 at CCC in Leipzig. There was some discussion on building a Code of Conduct for the relay operator community, but that discussion was focused on more technical issues rather than the social issues the already existing Code of Conduct in the Tor community handles. For example, the relay operators discussed issues such as remembering to configure the family settings properly, how large a guard/exit fraction should a single legal entity/AS number/data center/country contain at maximum.
In relations to this, the Community Council also briefly discussed the interactions between the community, the community council, and the directory authorities. As you know, the directory authorities is an independent group of people, that can decide on issues such as removing a relay from the Tor network in case of abuse. We were discussing the community council's way to suggest removal of relays such as relays that have racist slurs in their names and such. This was not a case open here per se, but this was more of an open discussion on how we want to engage for such issues. Fortunately, the bad relays group in Tor are good at suggesting relay removals for various abuse reasons, and we are sure we can work with the directory authorities if we end up having an issue that we need to work with them on.
On behalf of the Community Council, Alex.