I have a hard time seeing this as bad compromise between expediency and process: "If the act is ongoing (such as someone engaging in harassment in #django), or involves a threat to anyone's safety (e.g. threats of violence), any working group member may act immediately (before reaching consensus) to end the situation."

Remember that there is still after the fact accountability, and that the system relies on the people in the WG being trusted community members and reasonable people.

BTW this is not far from how it works in the real world. Bob is not going to be able to litigate his side of the story and face his accusers in most situations where he is removed from premises for harassment or threats of violence. And people generally are fine with this.

It's not exactly unusual for an IRC channel op to /kb someone actively being obnoxious, without first consulting with two other people or interviewing the person in question.

/kb carries very little long-term stigma. "Was kicked out of project X for violating their code of conduct" might do.

> "Was kicked out of project X for violating their code of conduct" might do.

Or might not. Especially if either project CoC's in general or Project X's specifically are known for being interpreted and enforced capriciously.