Implementation Plan: Managing A Sensitive Terms List

[zackkrida]

An implementation plan for the "sensitive terms list" required for #377.

Due Date

Review for this proposal should aim to be completed by 3 April 2023, two three weeks from when this PR was published.

Reviewers

• @sarayourfriend
• @dhruvkb

Please let me know if you'd prefer I choose someone else based on your current workloads or any other reason.

[github-actions]

Full-stack documentation: https://docs.openverse.org/_preview/911

Please note that GitHub pages takes a little time to deploy newly pushed code, if the links above don't work or you see old versions, wait 5 minutes and try again.

You can check the GitHub pages deployment action list to see the current status of the deployments.

[sarayourfriend]

I appreciate the anticipated questions section. Very handy.

Overall the approach should work for us, as far as I can tell, but I do have some clarifications, in particular with respect to what "reviewing the list" means.

[sarayourfriend]

I think we should be able to opt out.

I'm also comfortable volunteering to review the list of words.

However, I will ask: what is the intention behind reviewing the list of words? Are we reviewing for format or to review the actual words themselves and make recommendations on their inclusion/exclusion?

[zackkrida]

Are we reviewing for format or to review the actual words themselves and make recommendations on their inclusion/exclusion?

I think both of these would be important but primarily reviewing the actual words themselves.

[sarayourfriend]

Will these be in GitHub issues? I wonder if we can round-robin the volunteers who opt-into reviewing (sort of like MSR, somehow) and have a process for pushing review off to someone else if a particular suggestion is too difficult for the assigned individual to handle on their own.

We should also identify what resources sponsored contributors have access to as far as counselling etc in dealing with potential repercussions from reviewing the list in the course of our work duties.

[zackkrida]

Will these be in GitHub issues? I wonder if we can round-robin the volunteers who opt-into reviewing (sort of like MSR, somehow) and have a process for pushing review off to someone else if a particular suggestion is too difficult for the assigned individual to handle on their own.

This is an excellent suggestion.

We should also identify what resources sponsored contributors have access to

I'll look into this and update this section 👍

[sarayourfriend]

LGTM with the understanding that we'll ask for further assistance in communication of the topics discussed from WP Foundation.

I'm really glad there's a usable pre-existing resource for this.

[zackkrida]

I am going to update this proposal in the next day; I fell behind on revising it last week. I will notify @krysal, @sarayourfriend, and @dhruvkb when it is updated.

[openverse-bot]

Based on the medium urgency of this PR, the following reviewers are being gently reminded to review this PR:

@dhruvkb
This reminder is being automatically generated due to the urgency configuration.

Excluding weekend¹ days, this PR was updated 4 day(s) ago. PRs labelled with medium urgency are expected to be reviewed within 4 weekday(s)².

@zackkrida, if this PR is not ready for a review, please draft it to prevent reviewers from getting further unnecessary pings.

Footnotes

1. Specifically, Saturday and Sunday. ↩

2. For the purpose of these reminders we treat Monday - Friday as weekdays. Please note that the that generates these reminders runs at midnight UTC on Monday - Friday. This means that depending on your timezone, you may be pinged outside of the expected range. ↩

[zackkrida]

@sarayourfriend, @krysal, and @dhruvkb, this plan is updated with more background information, and more information about maintaining the sensitive terms list.

[sarayourfriend]

LGTM. I appreciate the additional details about how the lists were chosen and why each of them are useful together. I can't remember if I noted it here or in our synchronous discussions, but I can volunteer to review the list when the time comes. Identifying willing reviewers is the 4th item and comes after the creation of the list: who will create the list then? Should we find the folks willing to participate in the process to moderate the list first and then one of them can combine and open the PR?

[dhruvkb]

LGTM. I wanted to ask why a separate repo but that's answered later on.

[zackkrida]

@sarayourfriend I forgot to answer your questions prior to merging:

Identifying willing reviewers is the 4th item and comes after the creation of the list: who will create the list then? Should we find the folks willing to participate in the process to moderate the list first and then one of them can combine and open the PR?

I will setup the repo, create the initial terms PR, and find an additional volunteer to review the sensitive terms list PR. I'm creating a meta issue now to track the work.