Hi all, Please find below the draft minutes from our last meeting. Shane, you were cutting out a bit when you were updating on the gender metrics...so I have a feeling you'll need to maybe have a look at that part. If there's anything I didn't capture correctly, please let me know. Warm regards, Amanda --- RIPE Diversity Task Force - Meeting Minutes, 5 March 2019 Participants: Amanda Gowland, Mirjam Kühne, Brian Nisbet, J, Sasha Romijn, Vesna Manojlovic, Bijal Sanghani, Shane Kerr, Malcolm Hutty Agenda - Code of Conduct - Updates for RIPE 78 The main discussion for the day's meeting focused on the need to improve the RIPE Meeting Code of Conduct, specifically: - The text itself - The lack of processes around violations, reporting - The role that WG Chairs play in upholding the CoC - The timing and practical aspects of moving forward Amanda asked Sasha if she could brief the TF on what she shared on the mailing list given her experience working on Django's CoC and Write the Docs (WtD). Sasha said that the RIPE Meeting's CoC essentially says "don't be an asshole", but there's no documented mechanism for reporting violations or a team of people equipped to enforce it. She said that dealing with CoC violations/reporting requires resources and expressed doubt that the RIPE Chair had the time/resources for this. She said that for Write the Docs, they have a CoC Response Guide, which is a structured plan that stipulates who you involve when, how you deal with conflicts of interest and more specific information on what kinds of things are and are not acceptable. Amanda asked if the TF should propose a Code of Conduct Team, since the scope of the RIPE Meeting Trusted Contacts was not meant to tackle reporting and enforcing consequences of CoC violations. She asked Sasha if she'd be willing to help with this since she's the most experienced. Sasha said she would be happy to draw on the text from WtD. Amanda asked the TF what they thought about getting this in place for RIPE 78? Brian said he'd be weary of having something for the next meeting, only because registration is already open and people have to agree to the CoC during the registration process. It was too short to have a new proposal to the community. J asked if there was anything that could be done to improve the CoC for RIPE 78 without touching upon the text, like improving the process or the implementation. Code of Conduct Team? Sasha said that the current text is weak, so changes will need to happen there but in the meantime other things can be improved to help things progress. Brian agreed that the TF could look at the process and how that works. Amanda asked how the CoC Team should be selected - are people asked, is there a nomination process, etc? Sasha said it depends, in her experience it's a team of volunteers that ideally have experience and who meet some specific criteria (like having no record of CoC violations). Amanda mentioned that the RIPE NCC was in discussion with Hans Petter Holen (HPH) about having training for the WG Chairs so they are able to better uphold the CoC. Mirjam updated the TF that this is something that HPH is really supportive of and has given the go-ahead for us to organise this in Reykjavik for RIPE 78. He would like to do it at the WG Chair Lunch to ensure full participation. As an aside, Mir informed the group that she submitted a BoF for HPH about "RIPE and the Bigger Picture" - looking at the societal obligations of the RIPE community. Axel has also expressed a desired to have a bigger focus on this. Amanda asked what the next steps should be for drafting a new CoC and its related processes. Malcolm said that he would like to contribute. Sasha said she would also like to work on this. J asked what the process was for a new document, what process does it need to follow to be approved? Malcome said that for the Accountability TF, they just submitted their report. The process they were instructed to follow was that they share their report with the community for comment, there's a consultation period, the TF worked on the contributions and made amendments where applicable. A revised draft is then reported back to the community and it is up to HPH to declare consensus. Brian added that if they can get text together in the next 4-6 weeks, a draft could be ideally shared or presented at RIPE 78. He felt there would likely be pushback on any sort of stronger document. He said there was a difference with this and what the Accountability TF is doing - the issue with the CoC is that we don't want to have to go through 18 iterations. Malcolm replied that he hoped there wouldn't be multiple rounds of iterations and pointed out that this is a TF and not a WG. Although consultation is expected, it is up to the TF to decide what to do with the contributions from the community to the draft. But it is not for the TF to go from draft to execution, it is HPH to declare consensus and move forward. RIPE 78 Updates Amanda gave an update on the WiT session for RIPE 78 - we were moving it into the Side Room, taking place from 13:00-14:00. She has been working with the Icelandic WiT group and they were enthusiastic on helping build the programme. She said that she was disappointed with how few registered attendees have volunteered to be a mentor for RIPE 78, but that maybe it was a case of it just building up slowly. She also said that there were no organisations signing up as Diversity Ticket sponsors, so they will monitor this for a couple meetings and have to consider whether they still facilitate it going forward. Shane said he didn't really have much of an update for the gender metric gathering. He was playing around with a way to create visualisations. He updates the graphs for every meeting but they didn't look great in terms of % of women. He will work on an update before RIPE 78. Bijal added that it was the first time she has taken part in the TF, she missed the discussion about the CoC but will catch up on it. She said she was surprised there weren't more people signing up to be mentors and she will put her name forward. J asked about the mechanism to draft the CoC to ensure version control, bug trackers, etc., and if we were using something already for this? Amanda said that Google Docs seemed to be the easiest way to work on it to ensure changes are tracked, etc. J suggested GitHub. There were no further comments. Amanda thanked everyone for their feedback and closed the meeting.