Grants:IdeaLab/Human resources complaint receiving
What is the problem you're trying to solve?
In the Wikimedia community it sometimes happens that one person has a personal complaint about another person. As an example, this might be a sexual harassment complaint.
When anyone tries to complain about such things, there is no dedicated channel by means of which community members can report such things and have their complaint considered. In the same way that people with complaints are not supported, people who are the targets of complaints likewise have no support and frequently accept judgment at the discretion of an ad-hoc committee of Wikipedians who volunteer to resolve the matter. While this process might be the best process to use, and it is the one that has always been used in the past, I propose that it be formally considered and recognized as the official way to do things if this is the system everyone wants.
Here are the problems to solve:
- A complaint channel should be designated
- A point person must be named to respond to confidential complaints
- There must be some way to make information about complaints available to those who would develop systems for addressing current complaints
- There must be some way to make information about complaints available to those who would develop systems for preventing future complaints, perhaps as described at Grants:IdeaLab/Complaint resource research management
What is your solution?
Someone must document current complaint processes. Someone with professional experience should compare the current process with standard services of other large nonprofit organizations. The goal of this process should be finding satisfaction and justice for the person who complained while protecting the rights of the target of the complaint.
- Provide this service in coordination with other related services, perhaps under the direction of a community human resources staffperson
- Volunteer To identify 220.127.116.11 16:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- I agree that this needs to be done, and with the rationale on the talk page that the Foundation is not well-suited to perform this function because of inherent conflicts of interest which are likely to influence Foundation employees even when they try to be impartial. I would like to see some kind of accountability built in, for example, by independent review from uninvolved third parties. EllenCT (talk) 23:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)