Two Documents from the Code of Conduct Task Force
Dear RIPE community, Earlier today, the Code of Conduct TF published two documents for the community's review. We updated the document describing the Code of Conduct Team's operational procedures based on community input. We have also published a document describing a selection process for the Code of Conduct Team. You can find a blog post summarising the changes and linking to the drafts here: https://labs.ripe.net/author/leo_vegoda/two-documents-from-the-code-of-condu... Please review the documents and share feedback by the end of September. Comments on any aspects of either document are welcome. We're particularly keen to get feedback on the term length for the Code of Conduct Team. Kind regards, Leo Vegoda for the Code of Conduct TF
Hi Leo, all, I've several inputs/questions related to both documents. 1) I understand that if actions on someone are applied, for example, leaving the meeting, and then the appeal is in his/her favor (there was a misunderstanding, false or wrong perception of witness, etc.), there are legal risks if not properly compensated and even publicly recognized the mistake. I think we should have some text on that. 2) I don't agree that the CoC Team, even being different persons, is the right way to take care of possible Appeals. 3) I don't think is right to "permanently" ban anyone. It is like long-term prison, and everyone can make a mistake and correct the situation or his behavior. I understand that this will happen only in expectational circumstances, however, I feel that just having "for a period of time" is a more prudent path. 4) Is not clear to me if someone removed from a f2f event will also be banned from the mailing lists. I understand that not? 5) I don't think it makes any sense to "remove" someone from a virtual event. I will agree in only disallowing him to speak up. 6) Same a 3 above, I don't think anyone can be removed permanently from a mailing list. In fact, if he/she want to keep participating, it is plain easy to create an alternative email and rejoin, even if not posting. Similarly, can happen 5 above. Should we be realistic in what we can enforce? Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 14/9/22, 8:34, "ripe-list en nombre de Leo Vegoda" <ripe-list-bounces@ripe.net en nombre de leo@vegoda.org> escribió: Dear RIPE community, Earlier today, the Code of Conduct TF published two documents for the community's review. We updated the document describing the Code of Conduct Team's operational procedures based on community input. We have also published a document describing a selection process for the Code of Conduct Team. You can find a blog post summarising the changes and linking to the drafts here: https://labs.ripe.net/author/leo_vegoda/two-documents-from-the-code-of-condu... Please review the documents and share feedback by the end of September. Comments on any aspects of either document are welcome. We're particularly keen to get feedback on the term length for the Code of Conduct Team. Kind regards, Leo Vegoda for the Code of Conduct TF -- To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ripe-list ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
I will briefly reiterate my view that this process is unfair to the subject of a complaint and potentially a means of abuse in its own right. This has not changed since the previous version, so I shall not elaborate in detail. However I shall summarise some key problems that the complaint subject may face. The sanctions the CoC team are authorised to apply include those that would be devastating to the reputation and career of the accused, such as loss of office, publicly labelling them a racist or a sex attacker, or formally barring them from the RIPE community. It is therefore alarming to recognise: * The CoC team are not required to even explain the nature or circumstances of the complaint to the accused person. This is both unfair to the accused, and undermines any potential the process has to act in a corrective, rather than punitive, fashion. * The CoC team are not required to give the person who is the subject of the complaint an opportunity to explain themselves, or to deny, justify or excuse their actions, or to provide necessary context. This is inherently unfair and will undoubtedly lead to unjust and insupportable outcomes. * The complaint may be made anonymously. In itself this is unfair to the subject, who may well be unable to understand or recognise the incident referred to without this information, and who certainly will be deprived of the opportunity to identify abusive and malicious complaints. * The CoC team are not required to render a reasoned decision, only an outcome. So the accused may never know either what he was accused of, or what the CoC team believed or disbelieved. * The process does not impose any duty of fair treatment, honesty impartiality or independence on the CoC investigators * Because the complaint is made anonymously, and there is no duty of independence on the CoC team, the CoC team investigating a complaint and rendering a decision may include the person who raised the complaint, and without even realising this. * The process does not adopt a standard of proof, and leaves the CoC team free to adopt a "guilty until proven innocent" standard - and in a context where the accused doesn't even have the opportunity to prove themselves innocent because they might never be consulted or even contacted before a final decision is rendered. * The process does not adopt a standard for assessing the gravity of complaints, and leaves the CoC team free to adopt arbitrary standards and apply them inconsistently between one complaint and another. These features alone make this process entirely unfair and inappropriate for a procedure that may have serious professional, social and reputational consequences for the person who is the subject of the complaint. I expect that with further study additional serious deficiencies could be identified. It reads like a procedure for a preliminary triage of less serious and informal complaints that will be resolved amicably, not for a process that could bar someone from the community and potentially end their career. I do not believe any person could feel "safe and included" in a community that applies such a process. I certainly do not. My recommendation would be that this process is immediately rescinded, and RIPE NCC Legal are invited to draft a disciplinary process that upholds basic standards of fairness and due process, while seeking to apply the aspirations of the Code of Conduct. I would suggest that they take as guidance the objective of developing a process that would be lawful in the context of an HR disciplinary process for employees, when administered by community members. I recognise that this is not literally an employment process, and RIPE community members do not enjoy the legal rights of employees, but it is useful to have some kind of standard to apply and best not to try to reinvent the wheel; if there are particular features of employment protection that do not seem to RIPE Legal to be appropriate to apply in this context they should of course be free to disapply them. Once written, NCC Legal's proposal would then be remitted for consideration for adoption by this community. Kind Regards, Malcolm. -- Malcolm Hutty | Executive Director, Legal and Policy T: +44 7789 987 023 | www.linx.net London Internet Exchange Ltd (LINX) c/o WeWork, 2 Minster Court, Mincing Lane London EC3R 7BB Registered in England No. 3137929 at Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA -----Original Message----- From: diversity <diversity-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of Leo Vegoda Sent: 13 September 2022 16:47 To: ripe-list@ripe.net Cc: diversity@ripe.net Subject: [diversity] Two Documents from the Code of Conduct Task Force Dear RIPE community, Earlier today, the Code of Conduct TF published two documents for the community's review. We updated the document describing the Code of Conduct Team's operational procedures based on community input. We have also published a document describing a selection process for the Code of Conduct Team. You can find a blog post summarising the changes and linking to the drafts here: https://labs.ripe.net/author/leo_vegoda/two-documents-from-the-code-of-condu... Please review the documents and share feedback by the end of September. Comments on any aspects of either document are welcome. We're particularly keen to get feedback on the term length for the Code of Conduct Team. Kind regards, Leo Vegoda for the Code of Conduct TF _______________________________________________ diversity mailing list diversity@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/diversity
I didn't realize before most of the points that Malcolm is raising and fully agree with his inputs. No explanation from the CoC? No right to defense or explain? Guilty unless you prove otherwise? Anonymous? Really shameful if that's all correct. So please, the CoC should respond to each of those points to verify if is that way or it is being misunderstood. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 14/9/22, 13:45, "diversity en nombre de Malcolm Hutty" <diversity-bounces@ripe.net en nombre de Malcolm@linx.net> escribió: I will briefly reiterate my view that this process is unfair to the subject of a complaint and potentially a means of abuse in its own right. This has not changed since the previous version, so I shall not elaborate in detail. However I shall summarise some key problems that the complaint subject may face. The sanctions the CoC team are authorised to apply include those that would be devastating to the reputation and career of the accused, such as loss of office, publicly labelling them a racist or a sex attacker, or formally barring them from the RIPE community. It is therefore alarming to recognise: * The CoC team are not required to even explain the nature or circumstances of the complaint to the accused person. This is both unfair to the accused, and undermines any potential the process has to act in a corrective, rather than punitive, fashion. * The CoC team are not required to give the person who is the subject of the complaint an opportunity to explain themselves, or to deny, justify or excuse their actions, or to provide necessary context. This is inherently unfair and will undoubtedly lead to unjust and insupportable outcomes. * The complaint may be made anonymously. In itself this is unfair to the subject, who may well be unable to understand or recognise the incident referred to without this information, and who certainly will be deprived of the opportunity to identify abusive and malicious complaints. * The CoC team are not required to render a reasoned decision, only an outcome. So the accused may never know either what he was accused of, or what the CoC team believed or disbelieved. * The process does not impose any duty of fair treatment, honesty impartiality or independence on the CoC investigators * Because the complaint is made anonymously, and there is no duty of independence on the CoC team, the CoC team investigating a complaint and rendering a decision may include the person who raised the complaint, and without even realising this. * The process does not adopt a standard of proof, and leaves the CoC team free to adopt a "guilty until proven innocent" standard - and in a context where the accused doesn't even have the opportunity to prove themselves innocent because they might never be consulted or even contacted before a final decision is rendered. * The process does not adopt a standard for assessing the gravity of complaints, and leaves the CoC team free to adopt arbitrary standards and apply them inconsistently between one complaint and another. These features alone make this process entirely unfair and inappropriate for a procedure that may have serious professional, social and reputational consequences for the person who is the subject of the complaint. I expect that with further study additional serious deficiencies could be identified. It reads like a procedure for a preliminary triage of less serious and informal complaints that will be resolved amicably, not for a process that could bar someone from the community and potentially end their career. I do not believe any person could feel "safe and included" in a community that applies such a process. I certainly do not. My recommendation would be that this process is immediately rescinded, and RIPE NCC Legal are invited to draft a disciplinary process that upholds basic standards of fairness and due process, while seeking to apply the aspirations of the Code of Conduct. I would suggest that they take as guidance the objective of developing a process that would be lawful in the context of an HR disciplinary process for employees, when administered by community members. I recognise that this is not literally an employment process, and RIPE community members do not enjoy the legal rights of employees, but it is useful to have some kind of standard to apply and best not to try to reinvent the wheel; if there are particular features of employment protection that do not seem to RIPE Legal to be appropriate to apply in this context they should of course be free to disapply them. Once written, NCC Legal's proposal would then be remitted for consideration for adoption by this community. Kind Regards, Malcolm. -- Malcolm Hutty | Executive Director, Legal and Policy T: +44 7789 987 023 | www.linx.net London Internet Exchange Ltd (LINX) c/o WeWork, 2 Minster Court, Mincing Lane London EC3R 7BB Registered in England No. 3137929 at Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA -----Original Message----- From: diversity <diversity-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of Leo Vegoda Sent: 13 September 2022 16:47 To: ripe-list@ripe.net Cc: diversity@ripe.net Subject: [diversity] Two Documents from the Code of Conduct Task Force Dear RIPE community, Earlier today, the Code of Conduct TF published two documents for the community's review. We updated the document describing the Code of Conduct Team's operational procedures based on community input. We have also published a document describing a selection process for the Code of Conduct Team. You can find a blog post summarising the changes and linking to the drafts here: https://labs.ripe.net/author/leo_vegoda/two-documents-from-the-code-of-condu... Please review the documents and share feedback by the end of September. Comments on any aspects of either document are welcome. We're particularly keen to get feedback on the term length for the Code of Conduct Team. Kind regards, Leo Vegoda for the Code of Conduct TF _______________________________________________ diversity mailing list diversity@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/diversity _______________________________________________ diversity mailing list diversity@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/diversity ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
All the points Malcolm makes are valid and extremely relevant. The current timeframe gives great emphasis on the protection of victims, values 'lived experience' above objective facts. However in the end the rule of law and fundamental rights need to be adhered to. -- you need to know what you are accused of (and by whom) -- you need to be able to defend yourself -- you need to know how the coc team came to a decision -- you need to be able to appeal this. (third party arbitration?) Kafka' Der Process (The Trial) was a book, it should not become RIPE's reality.-- IDGARA | Alex de Joode | alex@idgara.nl | +31651108221 On Wed, 14-09-2022 13h 45min, Malcolm Hutty <Malcolm@linx.net> wrote:
I will briefly reiterate my view that this process is unfair to the subject of a complaint and potentially a means of abuse in its own right.
This has not changed since the previous version, so I shall not elaborate in detail. However I shall summarise some key problems that the complaint subject may face.
The sanctions the CoC team are authorised to apply include those that would be devastating to the reputation and career of the accused, such as loss of office, publicly labelling them a racist or a sex attacker, or formally barring them from the RIPE community. It is therefore alarming to recognise:
* The CoC team are not required to even explain the nature or circumstances of the complaint to the accused person. This is both unfair to the accused, and undermines any potential the process has to act in a corrective, rather than punitive, fashion.
* The CoC team are not required to give the person who is the subject of the complaint an opportunity to explain themselves, or to deny, justify or excuse their actions, or to provide necessary context. This is inherently unfair and will undoubtedly lead to unjust and insupportable outcomes.
* The complaint may be made anonymously. In itself this is unfair to the subject, who may well be unable to understand or recognise the incident referred to without this information, and who certainly will be deprived of the opportunity to identify abusive and malicious complaints.
* The CoC team are not required to render a reasoned decision, only an outcome. So the accused may never know either what he was accused of, or what the CoC team believed or disbelieved.
* The process does not impose any duty of fair treatment, honesty impartiality or independence on the CoC investigators
* Because the complaint is made anonymously, and there is no duty of independence on the CoC team, the CoC team investigating a complaint and rendering a decision may include the person who raised the complaint, and without even realising this.
* The process does not adopt a standard of proof, and leaves the CoC team free to adopt a "guilty until proven innocent" standard - and in a context where the accused doesn't even have the opportunity to prove themselves innocent because they might never be consulted or even contacted before a final decision is rendered.
* The process does not adopt a standard for assessing the gravity of complaints, and leaves the CoC team free to adopt arbitrary standards and apply them inconsistently between one complaint and another.
These features alone make this process entirely unfair and inappropriate for a procedure that may have serious professional, social and reputational consequences for the person who is the subject of the complaint. I expect that with further study additional serious deficiencies could be identified. It reads like a procedure for a preliminary triage of less serious and informal complaints that will be resolved amicably, not for a process that could bar someone from the community and potentially end their career.
I do not believe any person could feel "safe and included" in a community that applies such a process. I certainly do not.
My recommendation would be that this process is immediately rescinded, and RIPE NCC Legal are invited to draft a disciplinary process that upholds basic standards of fairness and due process, while seeking to apply the aspirations of the Code of Conduct. I would suggest that they take as guidance the objective of developing a process that would be lawful in the context of an HR disciplinary process for employees, when administered by community members. I recognise that this is not literally an employment process, and RIPE community members do not enjoy the legal rights of employees, but it is useful to have some kind of standard to apply and best not to try to reinvent the wheel; if there are particular features of employment protection that do not seem to RIPE Legal to be appropriate to apply in this context they should of course be free to disapply them. Once written, NCC Legal's proposal would then be remitted for consideration for adoption by this community.
Kind Regards,
Malcolm.
-- Malcolm Hutty | Executive Director, Legal and Policy T: +44 7789 987 023 | http://www.linx.net
London Internet Exchange Ltd (LINX) c/o WeWork, 2 Minster Court, Mincing Lane London EC3R 7BB
Registered in England No. 3137929 at Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
-----Original Message----- From: diversity " target="_blank"><diversity-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of Leo Vegoda Sent: 13 September 2022 16:47 To: ripe-list@ripe.net Cc: diversity@ripe.net Subject: [diversity] Two Documents from the Code of Conduct Task Force
Dear RIPE community,
Earlier today, the Code of Conduct TF published two documents for the community's review.
We updated the document describing the Code of Conduct Team's operational procedures based on community input. We have also published a document describing a selection process for the Code of Conduct Team.
You can find a blog post summarising the changes and linking to the drafts here:
https://labs.ripe.net/author/leo_vegoda/two-documents-from-the-code-of-condu...
Please review the documents and share feedback by the end of September.
Comments on any aspects of either document are welcome. We're particularly keen to get feedback on the term length for the Code of Conduct Team.
Kind regards,
Leo Vegoda for the Code of Conduct TF
_______________________________________________ diversity mailing list diversity@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/diversity
--
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ripe-list
Alex, many of your points *are* already addressed by the document: On 14/09/2022 15:57, Alex de Joode wrote:
-- you need to know what you are accused of (and by whom) (*) -- you need to be able to defend yourself
"3. Report is Assessed Depending on the nature of the report, elements of the assessment process may include (but are not limited to): Contacting the subject of the report to hear their side of the story"
-- you need to know how the coc team came to a decision
"4. Decision is Made" describes this; + "subject of the report should be informed."
-- you need to be able to appeal this. (third party arbitration?)
"5. Outcomes are Applied People who dispute the outcome of a report can contact the CoC Team to make an appeal. ... a different group of CoC Team members must review the case." Or, maybe the next step could be the (existing) "Arbitration Process": https://www.ripe.net/about-us/legal/arbitration/arbitration-process (*) "And by whom" is tricky... In case of "minor" offenses, This is not necessary to reveal. In case of more serious / personal harm occurring, hiding identity of the victim is often used to protect the victim from further trauma. Alternative approach I've heard of is geared towards protecting *community*, and revealing identity of the victim - with the goal to dispense with exactly _these_ kinds of discussions we are having now, making it easier to keep the offenders out of the community, in order to prevent *NEXT* victims of being hurt in the future... even if this hurts the existing victim again :( Vesna
Dear Leo, all, thank you (& the CoC drafting team) for the hard work you are putting into this! I am happy that the writing process is coming to a conclusion, and am looking forward to _finally_ have a complete framework for dealing with offensive / unpleasant / harmful behavior. I'd like to respond to some of the comments by Malcolm, Mike, Jordi & Alex: - this is a *community* self-governance process. It is not a duplication of state law framework, nor employment laws... while those still stay in place, and can be part of escalation. This is a process performed by volunteers, who have the benefit of the community at heart. Please consider volunteering, since you seem to be very passionate about justice and fairness. - this kind of process is proven to work in many other communities. - within RIPE, we had a "lite" version for several years now, called "Trusted Contacts" (TC) , and I have been one of the people "appointed" to this role: difficult job, so I got a training; it's not perfect to be appointed, nor it is perfect that I have kind-of "conflict of interest" since I work for RIPE NCC. As TC, we were not "empowered" to take any action, partially because we were not selected by the community, partially because there was no CoC framework... as we have now. Still, from the multiple years of experience, I can say that most of the reports we received would NOT have as a consequence that the "offenders" are removed from the meeting; consequences mostly were that they are "given the feedback", while keeping the identity of the complainer anonymous. I am voicing my support for the documents and the process, and I wish Leo and the team success in implementing it! Vesna
Thanks Vesna, You state: - this is a *community* self-governance process. It is not a duplication of state law framework, nor employment laws... while those still stay in place, and can be part of escalation. The *community* should not act outside the law, the *community* should respect and support basic fundamental rights. This process does not respect basic fundamental rights and therefor puts RIPE at risk and RIPE event attendees . The outcome of the proposed process can have real world consequences. Consequences that might be unfair maybe even career-ending so a cavalier 'who have the benefit of the community at heart' which implies: "and therefor know what to do and we trust in them so we need no transparency and due process" is not enough. The process makes everyone attending an RIPE event a potential target with no due process, no recourse, a total absence of fairness totally at the mercy of the CoC, and only the CoC. RIPE Legal can hopefully research what are the potential liabilities for RIPE, for the organizers of events and for members of the CoC itself. As I will assume that if an attendee is 'sanctioned' by the CoC, they might go to court if the impact is serious enough. They can do this either in NL or in the country that has hosted the event or even their own country if the impact is there. The outcome might not be very favorable for all of the above. So if a person gets sanctioned (banned from the event and maybe future events), and if he/she does not get to know what action got him/her banned, who complained etc. They could go to court in NL, request a 'voorlopig getuigenverhoor' where the CoC team members (and anyone they think has relevant information) have to answers questions (under oath, it's like a deposition). Those depositions could than be used in court for damage claims (loss of employment, libel/defamation). You can sue RIPE, the event or (individual) members of the CoC. Lawyers paradise and if you pick the jurisdictions correctly you might win the lottery several times over. We should ensure any process can standup scrutiny in court. That (unfortunately) means it has to be very 'court-like'. You also state: Please consider volunteering, since you seem to be very passionate about justice and fairness. When the process has been changed to include fairness and has a high change of delivering justice I might consider. Cheers, Alex -- IDGARA | Alex de Joode | alex@idgara.nl | +31651108221 On Wed, 14-09-2022 19h 03min, Vesna Manojlovic <BECHA@ripe.net> wrote:
Dear Leo, all,
thank you (& the CoC drafting team) for the hard work you are putting into this! I am happy that the writing process is coming to a conclusion, and am looking forward to _finally_ have a complete framework for dealing with offensive / unpleasant / harmful behavior.
I'd like to respond to some of the comments by Malcolm, Mike, Jordi & Alex:
- this is a *community* self-governance process. It is not a duplication of state law framework, nor employment laws... while those still stay in place, and can be part of escalation.
This is a process performed by volunteers, who have the benefit of the community at heart. Please consider volunteering, since you seem to be very passionate about justice and fairness.
- this kind of process is proven to work in many other communities.
- within RIPE, we had a "lite" version for several years now, called "Trusted Contacts" (TC) , and I have been one of the people "appointed" to this role: difficult job, so I got a training; it's not perfect to be appointed, nor it is perfect that I have kind-of "conflict of interest" since I work for RIPE NCC. As TC, we were not "empowered" to take any action, partially because we were not selected by the community, partially because there was no CoC framework... as we have now.
Still, from the multiple years of experience, I can say that most of the reports we received would NOT have as a consequence that the "offenders" are removed from the meeting; consequences mostly were that they are "given the feedback", while keeping the identity of the complainer anonymous.
I am voicing my support for the documents and the process, and I wish Leo and the team success in implementing it!
Vesna
_______________________________________________ diversity mailing list diversity@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/diversity
Alex, this will be my last message today -- taking my own guidelines on "taking a deep breath" before sending too many messages ;-) On 14/09/2022 20:43, Alex de Joode wrote:
The *community* should not act outside the law, the *community* should respect and support basic fundamental rights. This process does not respect basic fundamental rights
I disagree.
The outcome of the proposed process can have real world consequences. Consequences that might be unfair maybe even career-ending
This is a hypothetical consequence. I want to point you out to the _existing_ real-world consequences, and career-endings that already happened for many of the participants in technical communities (including RIPE) because of the behaviors that CoC is trying to prevent or deal with. Many *women* leave tech industry because of abuse, or micro-aggressions. We are missing out on the contributions by persons of color, young people, "people with thin skin"... People with different views on priviledge do not even consider joining.
The process makes everyone attending an RIPE event a potential target with no due process, no recourse, a total absence of fairness totally at the mercy of the CoC, and only the CoC.
I argue that the _absence_ of process is one of the factors that have resulted in the existing state of (lack of) "diversity & inclusion" in the RIPE Community.
RIPE Legal can hopefully research what are the potential liabilities for RIPE, for the organizers of events and for members of the CoC itself.
Thank you, this is a good suggestion.
for damage claims (loss of employment, libel/defamation). You can sue RIPE, the event or (individual) members of the CoC.
I don't think that this fear should stop us from implementing the process -- and I expect that these kind of extreme decions will not be taken lite-ly!
You also state: /Please consider volunteering, since you seem to be very passionate about justice and fairness./
When the process has been changed to include fairness and has a high change of delivering justice I might consider.
I am curious about your suggestions for increasing fairness. Thank you, Vesna
participants (5)
-
Alex de Joode -
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ -
Leo Vegoda -
Malcolm Hutty -
Vesna Manojlovic