Appeals: who reviews the reviewers?

The charter promises appeals and independent review of suspensions and disputes. Fine in principle, but design details decide whether it is real.

My checklist of requirements:

• The reviewer pool is public with short biographies and declared interests.
• A reviewer cannot sit on a case involving someone they know or compete with.
• Decisions come with written reasons.
• There is a time limit for a response. Silence must not be a way to kill an appeal.
• Statistics are published: number of cases, outcomes, average time. No personal data.

If we can't keep these, the appeal is theatre. Please add, remove, or disagree.

All reasonable. I'd add that the person appealing can choose to remain pseudonymous towards the public while being known to the reviewers.

As a teacher: also provide a plain-language template for filing an appeal. People who are upset don't write in legal language.

A template and a plain checklist are in. I will draft them this week.

Thanks. The statistics idea is the one that holds us honest in the long run.

Good thread. I understood it, which means it was written properly.