Instead, I suggest to a call on everyone in the community to actively
intervene when they observe inappropriate behavior and to help all
parties concerned to resolve the situation.

Although this is a good message in general, it is in my experience

unlikely to have much effect. Speaking up, even if you are not the

person directly affected by the incident, is a big step. It always involves

some danger, especially when the person creating harm is in a position

of power. The bystander effect also comes into play.

I would definitely be unlikely to speak up, because it’s usually too risky,

and has too little chance to make a difference. Especially at a RIPE

meeting right now, due to lack of an effective CoC process.

Also, “helping all parties to resolve the situation” is risky language,

as it places a responsibility on the person being harmed to contribute

to resolving the situation. In some incidents this may be appropriate,

but in CoC teams I’ve been a part of, a fundamental point of all the

process is that we place as little burden on the reporter as possible.

I suggest to maintain the current system of trusted contacts for
reporting violations and add that staff and volunteers such as chairs
and PC are also available. Where, by the way, is the evidence that this
is not sufficient? Maybe the trusted contacts can provide some sort of
transparency report to us?

Well, currently I wouldn’t consider reporting a CoC incident at a RIPE

meeting, because why would I? None of the people you list are actually

empowered to take any action, other than offer sympathies.

And how will these people make decisions? If I make a CoC report, will

it be discussed by the entire PC, all chairs, and trusted contacts together?

That is way too many people, and introduces many problems.

If you empower these people to actually take action, up to the unusually

rare action of immediate removal from the conference, how does it solve

the concerns you raise about a CoC team?

On a sidenote, this would also involve a requirement for training all PC

members, WG chairs, and trusted contacts at CoC incident response.

Further I recommend to develop a response plan that defines who is
responsible to take action in cases where individuals do not stop
inappropriate behavior once it is pointed out to them.

Are you saying that people should always, in every incident, first have

the behaviour pointed out, then re-violate, before more serious action

can be taken?

These
responsibilities do exist today within our governance structure. They
are shared between RIPE, RIPE NCC and third parties such as the
owners/operators of our venues. Maybe this needs to be clarified and we
may need to establish roles within these structures that are responsible
to follow up on any actions.

I’d argue that the current CoC process has way too many people kind of

responsible, and therefore in the end nobody responsible. In the current

situation, nobody has sufficient power, is able to act with sufficient speed,

provide sufficient confidentiality, and has expertise, to deal with incidents.

As an example, I reported a CoC incident about 7 months ago now, and

have still not received a response other than a number of apologies for

not sending a response. This is exactly due to the lack of process and

clear responsibility.

But let us not create a new committee whose
sole purpose is to sanction community members without any process!

I think this is partially addressed by the response guide linked above,

which we should have published along with the CoC process. Perhaps

this needs amendments. But the new proposal has much more process

behind it than the current setup.

We should also make it clear that we do not tolerate any abuse of the
code of conduct itself. I realise that can be interpreted as
off-putting. However it is an essential part of such a code.

Do you have a suggested wording for this? I have intentionally avoided

this in the past, because it risks discouraging reports, and getting

people to report incidents is one of the hardest parts.