Changed from agree: on reflection, I don't think the "standing jury" (name to be changed) is ready to do this yet, and a better name might help people see it more clearly.

Excepting that there should be a clear policy on process and documentation of the instances that are silenced and a way for a SC member to petition for a an unblocking if they felt there was cause.

I think this is an appropriate job for the group known as the standing jury. However, I think strong evidence of harmful CoC-violating content or encouragement of it should be required. Should we reach out to admins before silencing?

I'm not sure if it's fair for me to the standing jury more power as I'm a member of that group as well, but better to ask forgiveness than permission. If anyone disagrees with me voting I'll abstain, no hard feelings. :)

I think the proposal would be stronger w/o the CoC drafts element, as there's some contradictory stuff between the drafts, but I do support empowering the standing jury to make mute calls w/o having to run every mute past the full Working Group.

But there needs to be accountability - it needs to be possible for the coop at large to override such a decision.

I agree in principle, just let's be aware that "shitposting" is a very broad concept. The CoC part will likely be easier to check.

This sounds like an efficient approach. As others have mentioned, I think it is important that there is transparency in the process and that if an instance it silenced, this should be communicated to all members, ideally on Social.Coop itself.

Sounds good as an intermediate step.

I agree, but my vote is as abstain due to being on the jury myself.