We are not commiunicating: My point is that any action taken on behalf of the community needs a process for appeal and review. This is especially true if the action can be perceived as corrective or punitive and/or if it involves some form of judgement about behavior. In these cases we better have a well defined process for appeal and review in place before someone disagrees with what we are doing. I included the examples to make the point that the new process proposes grave sanctions. I was not addressing the sanctions themselves.

But since we are here:

On 2 Sep 2019, at 14:09, Amanda Gowland wrote:

Hi Daniel,

On 02/09/2019 14:03, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:

I consider this absolutely not ready for a consensus call. It introduces a new process with grave sanctions including

*

“Removing a presentation and video archive from the meeting website”

Disagree. If someone violates the CoC in their presentation, they should be given an opportunity to remove the offending material and re-upload. Likewise, if there's a video recording of someone being racist/sexist/homophobic/harrasing (for example), the video should either be removed or have the offending content edited out.

Removing someone’s contribution from a community forum is serious business in a community that is about exchanging information and opinions!

Maybe we should incorporate some of the words you just wrote in the draft itself. At the moment it reads like removal is the only option. Again: how are disputes with the author solved? Will the CoC team dictate the edits? What happens in case of a dispute?

*

“Requiring that the violator leave the meeting/social immediately
without a refund (as per the RIPE Meeting Terms and Conditions)”

This is nothing new. We already state this in the T&Cs for the RIPE Meeting that all attendees agree to in the registration process.

The process proposed is new.

*

“Banning attendance for future meetings (in the case of repeated
violations, violence and extreme violations)”

Yet there is no mention at all of appeal, review or redress. This is not the way the RIPE community should operate.

This was discussed on Friday with HPH - I'll be adding some text in here re: Appeal...as well as incorporating the rest of his feedback.

I also suggest to have the language reviewed by the NCC legal team for legality and precision
before considering a consensus call.

Yes, have already discussed this and that is the plan.

Good to hear.

Thanks.

Daniel