We want to balance privacy with transparency, so if there's a way of doing this without violating anyone's privacy, then we'd be off to a better start here

Yes, of course, @Mithrandir24601. I meant with details redacted as needed.

If the panel is forced to publish every summary rejection, that could lead to abuse by a community member - sending serial spurious complaints about a moderator just to get the rejections published.

@IsaacMoses, good point. But I don't like that a summary rejection can have been noticed by only two panel members, has no appeal, and has no publication.

. . . I've edited this answer to state that clearly.

This post contains two things: First of all, the reasons for the decision should already be published. I'd consider the explanation (Art. 24) part of te decision; but I can also add a "and the explanations" in Art. 22 if you think, that it isn't clear enough.

For the second thing -- summary decisions -- it's hard to strike a balance here. We want the panel to be accountable and transparent and prevent any kind of possible abuse. However, we also want to prevent malicious users from blocking the panel with nefarious appeals or to flood the publication list with pointless summary rejections.

I don't think, the publication of summary rejections is really that helpful, because it will at most be XXXX vs Site Moderators -> Summarily rejected as spam. (XXXX = redacted). If you want to find out, at which rate summary rejections happen, we can do that. It would be contrary to the principle of a "summary decision", to require the reporters to write long explanations.

For comparison, in U.S. courts, even summary judgments are reported.

@msh210 Yeah, something like such a separate list of summary rejections should be possible if they can be automatized (depends on the management systems we'll end up using). I am not sure, whether we should publish the names of users with unsuccessful appeals, but this can be done in general. I'll review it for the next revision of this draft.

If we're concerned about noisy/nefarious appeals flooding the list and making it hard to find the real ones, they don't all have to be mingled on the same list -- deliberated appeals on one list, summary judgements on another. And it would be fine to aggregate them where applicable, e.g. "July 2020, 3 appeals from same user about suspension for spam, summarily dismissed" or the like. Looking to what courts do is a good idea (though appeals on Codidact are cheaper/easier than court filings).

Yeah, having summary rejections on a separate list sounds like a good idea. Could take that further and just have a single list that contains all the summary rejections, while each 'real' rejection would be done as a separate post (maybe that's what you're getting at here?)