Improve guidelines on undermining the CoC process

[olasitarska]

TODO that I moved into issue from communications.md docs, originally written by @cogat:

We need to beef up our CoC guidelines to make it clear that retaliatory actions will be penalised at 10x the impact of the original infractions. For example, if we censured someone privately, and then we found out that they had worked out the source of the complaint and was spreading rumours, we could come out publicly and hard. At that point, the public announcement is that the person has shown utter contempt for the CoC process, and as such, the DSF doesn't believe they can be trusted at events. The fact that there was an original CoC complaint is almost secondary at that point - the person is being publicly censured for undermining the CoC process.

[olasitarska]

@cogat I feel like this should be added as a guildeline in decision making part of reports.md?

[cogat]

There's a couple of things here. One is as you say; another is that I think the view about retaliation/undermining needs to form part of the Code of Conduct - ie the deal that people agree to when they participate in the Django community.

Which leads to a related question - how does the committee get the CoC reviewed/updated? Presumably changes need to be blessed by the DSF. Is it version-controlled in a way that we can make pull requests? Do we need a formal way of doing it or do we just request?