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
I feel the same as Malcom and Alex, there are some basic requirements of fairness towards the subject of a complaint that seem to be lacking here. More transparency is needed, in my opinion, the potential for abuse of process is too high. Regards, Mike Burns From: ripe-list <ripe-list-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of Alex de Joode Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2022 9:57 AM To: Malcolm Hutty <Malcolm@linx.net> Cc: ripe-list@ripe.net; diversity@ripe.net Subject: Re: [ripe-list] [diversity] Two Documents from the Code of Conduct Task Force 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 <mailto:alex@idgara.nl> | +31651108221 On Wed, 14-09-2022 13h 45min, Malcolm Hutty <Malcolm@linx.net <mailto: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 <mailto:%3cdiversity-bounces@ripe.net%3e> <diversity-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of Leo Vegoda Sent: 13 September 2022 16:47 To: ripe-list@ripe.net <mailto:ripe-list@ripe.net> Cc: diversity@ripe.net <mailto: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 <mailto: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
seems reasonable, if a bit over-prescriptive. must have been done by engineers :) i am a bit confused by your "One question for the community" asking "Should terms be kept to one year ..." when in the draft they are two years with ability to renew once. but i confuse easily. randy
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
On 14 Sep 2022, at 20:53, Vesna Manojlovic <BECHA@ripe.net> wrote:
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"...
With respect Vesna, these problems *cannot* possibly hope to be fixed with RIPE's Code of Conduct. Or anyone else's CoC for that matter. The concerns you raise are of course very real. However they are complex and have too many structural/societal/cultural causes that are both out of scope and far beyond RIPE's capabilities. For instance, the lack of women in the tech industry probably originates from few women/girls following STEM subjects at school and further education. So the tech sector starts from a bad bad place and inevitably goes downhill from there. Sigh. And hey, both of us are persons of colour too - as are the other ~7B people on this planet. A better way for RIPE to make a difference here might be to require a more diverse and representative presence across the board: presenters, PC & TF membership, WG co-chairs, etc. That IMO would have more tangible results than fine words and fancy processes around some CoC. Maybe you disagree. But that's to be answered for both of us with an objective evidence-led approach rather than going by gut feel or best guesses. I am both surprised and very disappointed that you (or the TF?) seem to want to the CoC to fix these deep-seated and complex problems. Which are for society in general, not RIPE IMO. The CoC is supposed to deal with bad behaviour* at RIPE meeting - no more, no less. There is nothing in the existing or proposed new CoC's remit which deals with the issues you mentioned. So I don't understand how or why they have somehow become topics for the CoC or the various task forces to address. Please explain. If the new CoC's authors/supporters have other intentions or aspirations beyond dealing with bad behaviour at RIPE meetings, IMO they need to be far more transparent about those objectives. That would mean a radically different TF charter and a far clearer problem statement is needed. And for bonus points, the final output from the TF (or whatever) needs to show how their work fixes that problem or problems. * The correct word here is "behaviour", not "behaviours". Behaviour is a mass noun which does not get pluralised. So is the word "aggression". Or is this sort of language pedantry about to be classed as a CoC violation?
Hi Jim, On 15/09/2022 23:21, Jim Reid wrote:
On 14 Sep 2022, at 20:53, Vesna Manojlovic <BECHA@ripe.net> wrote:
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"...
With respect Vesna, these problems *cannot* possibly hope to be fixed with RIPE's Code of Conduct. Or anyone else's CoC for that matter. The concerns you raise are of course very real. However they are complex and have too many structural/societal/cultural causes that are both out of scope and far beyond RIPE's capabilities. For instance, the lack of women in the tech industry
Vesna is not talking about that, nor is she suggesting the CoC could fix that. She is clearly talking about the women who "leave tech industry because of abuse, or micro-aggressions" ("leave" being a key word here). You are committing strawman's fallacy. probably originates from few women/girls following STEM subjects at school and further education. So the tech sector starts from a bad bad place and inevitably goes downhill from there. Sigh. And hey, both of us are persons of colour too - as are the other ~7B people on this planet.
A better way for RIPE to make a difference here might be to require a more diverse and representative presence across the board: presenters, PC & TF membership, WG co-chairs, etc. That IMO would have more tangible results than fine words and fancy processes around some CoC. Maybe you disagree. But that's to be answered for both of us with an objective evidence-led approach rather than going by gut feel or best guesses.
I am both surprised and very disappointed that you (or the TF?) seem to want to the CoC to fix these deep-seated and complex problems. Which are for society in general, not RIPE IMO.
The CoC is supposed to deal with bad behaviour* at RIPE meeting - no more, no less. There is nothing in the existing or proposed new CoC's remit which deals with the issues you mentioned. So I don't understand how or why they have somehow become topics for the CoC or the various task forces to address. Please explain.
If the new CoC's authors/supporters have other intentions or aspirations beyond dealing with bad behaviour at RIPE meetings, IMO they need to be far more transparent about those objectives. That would mean a radically different TF charter and a far clearer problem statement is needed. And for bonus points, the final output from the TF (or whatever) needs to show how their work fixes that problem or problems.
* The correct word here is "behaviour", not "behaviours". Behaviour is a mass noun which does not get pluralised. So is the word "aggression". Or is this sort of language pedantry about to be classed as a CoC violation?
Correcting a non-native speaker in a public forum is kind of rude. If you wanted to be purely educational, you could've sent her a follow-up private message.
Dear Jim, all, I might have come across as defensive, mistakenly assuming that what is needed is more education or clarification... Let me re-frame the discussion: "we" are at the stage where we are fine-tuning one of the tools (for increasing Diversity, Inclusion & Equity - and Justice), the tool that is "Code of Conduct" procedure. We are NOT at the stage where we discuss *if* we need CoC; nor are we at the stage where we talk about "do we have a problem". This has all been established long time ago: yes, RIPE Community (just like all other technical communities, just like society) has problems of inequality, injustice, un-examined privileges for some and marginalization, harassment and abuse for others... ... and it has been also established that "we" want to do something to solve that. (*) Solving it on the level of the society does NOT mean that we can stop trying to solve it on the levels of RIPE Community (and our place of employment , family, school...). We have to solve it on all levels. The *reasons* why we want is more justice/diversity are: because inclusive community will attract better contributions from more creative participants, and we will together build better (less harmful?) policies, tools, protocols, connections-and-education via IP networking... On 15/09/2022 23:21, Jim Reid wrote:
On 14 Sep 2022, at 20:53, Vesna Manojlovic <BECHA@ripe.net> wrote:
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"...
With respect Vesna, these problems *cannot* possibly hope to be fixed with RIPE's Code of Conduct.
I am both surprised and very disappointed that you (or the TF?) seem to want to the CoC to fix these deep-seated and complex problems. Which are for society in general, not RIPE IMO.
As with other complex problems, there is not one single fix -- it will take a lot of other steps, as listed here(*), here(*) and here(*), to increase "diversity & inclusion" -- CoC is just one of the "tools". (*) 2016 https://labs.ripe.net/author/shane/measuring-gender-diversity-at-ripe-meetin... 2017 https://labs.ripe.net/author/agowland/diversity-discussions-at-ripe-74/ 2018 https://labs.ripe.net/author/agowland/reflecting-back-on-ripe-77-big-gains-o... 2019 https://labs.ripe.net/author/agowland/do-good-at-ripe-78-sponsor-a-diversity... 2020 https://labs.ripe.net/author/hans_petter_holen/reporting-back-from-ripe-79/ 2021 https://labs.ripe.net/author/becha/diversity-matters-at-ripe-83/ 2022 https://labs.ripe.net/author/becha/spring-and-summer-events-season-2022/
A better way for RIPE to make a difference here might be to require a more diverse and representative presence across the board: presenters, PC & TF membership, WG co-chairs,
This is, indeed, a suggestion I agree with -- these positions are both the most visible, thus provide role-models -- and hold the (informal) power: therefore, increasing diversity there would lead to more inclusion & equity.
Maybe you disagree. But that's to be answered for both of us with an objective evidence-led approach rather than going by gut feel or best guesses.
We do have evidence of the state of diversity within RIPE Community _without_ the CoC process, for the last 32 years. There is also evidence from other, similar communities, on the impact of CoC procedures on increasing inclusion: https://wiki.techinc.nl/Ladies_Night#Increasing_the_gender_diversity https://wiki.techinc.nl/Ladies_Night#Dealing_with_Harassment https://wiki.techinc.nl/Ladies_Night#Further_Reading_after_34c3
The CoC is supposed to deal with bad behaviour* at RIPE meeting - no more, no less. There is nothing in the existing or proposed new CoC's remit which deals with the issues you mentioned. So I don't understand how or why they have somehow become topics for the CoC or the various task forces to address. Please explain.
Since you asked nicely ("Please explain.") In short: if there is a procedure for "dealing bad behavior", it is reassuring & brings feelings of safety to the people who are (systematically) on the receiving end of "bad behavior". If they feel safe, that is *one of the prerequisites* for joining RIPE Community. The opposite - if there is no CoC (&enforcement), this is a "red flag" for vulnerable people. Longer explanation: I refer you to the literature listed in the links above, e.g.: - security & hackers conference: https://www.vice.com/en/article/8q8x3g/female-hackers-still-face-harassment-...
Changes that can be made include reliable ways for women to report incidents, and an effective form of enforcement.
"In my experience, the organizers of a con make a huge difference. If they make it clear they have zero tolerance for harassment or assault, and enforce this policy from the start, it's a big help," said one woman from the infosec industry.
But beyond codes of conduct, it'll take more fundamental changes for harassment of women to really dissipate from hacking and security conferences.
"I think what broadly needs to change is really the culture of the industry," Wang said. "The security industry has a little bit of a problem where it's not only male dominated, but it's dominated by a particular kind of personality."
- anarchist & activists groups , implementing "Restorative and Transformative Justice" for a long time - and still struggling: https://crimethinc.com/2013/04/17/accounting-for-ourselves-breaking-the-impa... - science: https://www.wandering-scientist.com/2015/06/playing-game-rigged-against-you.... - "google memo": Taking Male Entitlement Seriously, Aug. 7th, 2017: https://tim.dreamwidth.org/2035407.html - engineering / IETF: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc7776/
If the new CoC's authors/supporters have other intentions or aspirations beyond dealing with bad behaviour at RIPE meetings, IMO they need to be far more transparent about those objectives. That would mean a radically different TF charter and a far clearer problem statement is needed.
As I said, this has been dealt with from 2016 to 2022, within, indeed, another Task Force -- Diversity TF: https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/tf/ripe-diversity-task-force
* The correct word here is "behaviour", not "behaviours". Behaviour is a mass noun which does not get pluralised. So is the word "aggression". Or is this sort of language pedantry about to be classed as a CoC violation?
As Gergana pointed out, this argument is falling within multiple logical fallacies ;-) I prefer this quote:
Fry’s point was that we should not get caught up in the minutia of language, correcting the grammatical glitches we see in public, in the use of our friends, online, etc. Rather, says Fry, we should exult in language, take delight in the feel of the words in our mouths. He even concludes that language is a native born right to all who speak and no one should tell them they have no right to use it, or that they should feel inferior because they “can’t spell broccoli or moccasins.”
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/elflandletters/2019/07/05/the-magic-of-languag...
And for bonus points, the final output from the TF (or whatever) needs to show how their work fixes that problem or problems.
To reply in the same "spirit": How did this work for the DNS-wg? Are all of the DNS problems fixed now? Or, at least, DNSSEC? Is there a "final output"? But to get back to the substance of the argument: This sort of pedantry is not as such CoC violation, but is an example of the specific "atmosphere" & "culture". As a woman, and a not-native speaker, I got used to being target of such comments; but as older woman, I am not staying silent about it any more. https://wiki.techinc.nl/Ladies_Night#More_about_silencing Changing atmosphere & culture require _deeper_ changes than introducing CoC procedures -- CoC is only one of the basic tools. "Realists" tend to say that we have a $result that we deserve: https://labs.ripe.net/author/becha/ripe-community-resilience-every-society-h... Deeper changes require empathy, reflexivity about privilege and power structures, striving for equity and not "fairness", questioning our personal biases and systematic intersectional oppression(s)... https://labs.ripe.net/author/becha/data-feminism-from-data-ethics-to-data-ju... In solidarity, Vesna -- Senior Community Builder, RIPE NCC Working times: Monday-Thursday 10-16 CEST https://labs.ripe.net/author/becha/
On 14 Sep 2022, at 20:43, Alex de Joode <alex@idgara.nl> wrote:
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’.
RIPE is not a legal entity. You would sue the persons that have made the consequential allegations, i.e the officers implementing the CoC. They would be personally liable for their actions. I am not a lawyer but I do not believe this law suit would have to be in NL as there is not thing special about NL in this regard. What you are describing (I think) is a situation where the RIPE NCC is considered the organiser and the legal home of any activity covered by the CoC. In this case the officers implementing the CoC would have to be appointed by the RIPE NCC and considered legally employed (or covered) by the RIPE NCC and therefor their indemnity insurance would cover it and it would be dealt with in the NL. I have no idea if this was considered by the CoC taks force but I just want to reiterate there is no RIPE legal entity. The officers implementing the CoC are doing this under their own risk and responsibility. I am happy to be corrected by a real lawyer…. - kurtis -
Hi Kurt, Tnx. I'm not privy to the way RIPE NCC organizes their events, but what you describe is what I meant yes. There will always be a nexus to RIPE NCC for official RIPE events. So both RIPE NCC and the individual CoC members could be held liable for the outcome of an inproper process. You are also correct they could be sued 'everywhere' (there has to be a nexus(event was held there, where an CoC member lives, where the 'person negatively impacted by the proces' lives or is employed etc.) but as RIPE NCC is based in NL, you will always have standing there. -- IDGARA | Alex de Joode | alex@idgara.nl | +31651108221 On Fri, 16-09-2022 10h 00min, Kurtis Lindqvist <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se> wrote:
On 14 Sep 2022, at 20:43, Alex de Joode " target="_blank"><alex@idgara.nl> wrote:
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’.
RIPE is not a legal entity. You would sue the persons that have made the consequential allegations, i.e the officers implementing the CoC. They would be personally liable for their actions. I am not a lawyer but I do not believe this law suit would have to be in NL as there is not thing special about NL in this regard.
What you are describing (I think) is a situation where the RIPE NCC is considered the organiser and the legal home of any activity covered by the CoC. In this case the officers implementing the CoC would have to be appointed by the RIPE NCC and considered legally employed (or covered) by the RIPE NCC and therefor their indemnity insurance would cover it and it would be dealt with in the NL.
I have no idea if this was considered by the CoC taks force but I just want to reiterate there is no RIPE legal entity. The officers implementing the CoC are doing this under their own risk and responsibility.
I am happy to be corrected by a real lawyer….
- kurtis -
Hi, On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 07:03:29PM +0200, Vesna Manojlovic wrote:
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.
Nothing here ensures that the CoC enforcement team will continue to be manned by positive and caring individuals. When this was presented first time, my thought was "this looks more like a band seeking revenge", and I stated so (and was yelled at). I do feel very much at home in the RIPE community, but if we institute a system without proper balances, I wouldn't feel comfortable anymore. In essence, what Malcolm said. Look at the process through the eyes of someone intent on harming someone else, through whatever means needed. Is it still good?
- this kind of process is proven to work in many other communities.
The "other communities need this" argument has never really rang true for me. We're not "other communities", we're RIPE.
- 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.
This is something I've liked and wholeheartly supported (and while not *formally* empowered, you were trusted to do the right thing, and the NCC had all the empowerment it needed to kick out someone from a RIPE meeting if needed). Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 12:16 AM Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 07:03:29PM +0200, Vesna Manojlovic wrote:
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.
Nothing here ensures that the CoC enforcement team will continue to be manned by positive and caring individuals.
When this was presented first time, my thought was "this looks more like a band seeking revenge", and I stated so (and was yelled at).
I do feel very much at home in the RIPE community, but if we institute a system without proper balances, I wouldn't feel comfortable anymore. In essence, what Malcolm said.
Look at the process through the eyes of someone intent on harming someone else, through whatever means needed. Is it still good?
Right now, without the CoC, someone intent on harming someone else could harass the victim with no recourse. Is that good?
- this kind of process is proven to work in many other communities.
The "other communities need this" argument has never really rang true for me. We're not "other communities", we're RIPE.
- 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.
This is something I've liked and wholeheartly supported (and while not *formally* empowered, you were trusted to do the right thing, and the NCC had all the empowerment it needed to kick out someone from a RIPE meeting if needed).
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 --
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
Hi, On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 06:00:16AM -0700, Leslie wrote:
Right now, without the CoC, someone intent on harming someone else could harass the victim with no recourse. Is that good?
We *have* a CoC, and that is good. Right now accompanied with a group of trusted contacts, who are very much trusted, and this is also a good and strong signal. What I have very uneasy feelings about is the construction of the sanctioning mechanism (wich is the part we do not have yet). As is it constructed, this should work well enough if everybody involved is positive, trying to help and protect victims of CoC violations, and not following other agendas. The whole installation of this acknowledges that there might be players in our community that are not positive, and are not working for the good of others. So why do we assume that these players will not use the CoC sanctioning mechanism for their own agenda? Society as a whole acknowledges this in modern processes concerned with allegiations, right of defense, and transparency. Malcolm looks at the process as proposed from the point of view "what if the team is constituted by people that are not pure white in heart and actions?" - and I find these valid concerns. What is that we want to have? A friendly climate and clear rules on what is expected behaviour, or a strong and powerful revenge and kick-out mechanism, without proper controls (which's existance sends its own clear signals)? If you make the latter too one-sided, you can't have the former. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
gert, [ caveat: while i do not reside in the ripe region, i am a paying lir customer of the ncc and have hung around the ripe community for a few decades. otherwise, i would likely not speak. ] with all due respect, and as one old white male to another ... when it comes to harassment, the ripe community is tragically normal. this is not theory, but actual history. there is a long wide trail of harrassment. that women and other non-white-male folk have left in exasperation is not theory, but history and ongoing. some of the tenor of this discussion in itself likely contributes to this attrition. i suggest, for the purpose of discussion o separating the code of conduct from the operational procedures o and discussing the real points with which one has serious issue while suggesting change(s) which would resolve that disagreement randy
Dear colleagues, Just a reminder that the deadline for comments on the two draft documents from the RIPE Code of Conduct Task Force is tomorrow. Any additional comments or feedback are welcome. - Draft RIPE Code of Conduct Team: Appointment and Responsibilities: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-documents/other-documents/draft-... - Draft RIPE Code of Conduct: Process and Consequences v2: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-documents/other-documents/draft-... Kind regards, Antony Gollan Communications Team Manager RIPE NCC (on behalf of the Code of Conduct TF) On 13/09/2022 20:46, Leo Vegoda wrote:
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
participants (13)
-
Alex de Joode -
Antony Gollan -
Gergana Petrova -
Gert Doering -
Jim Reid -
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ -
Kurtis Lindqvist -
Leo Vegoda -
Leslie -
Malcolm Hutty -
Mike Burns -
Randy Bush -
Vesna Manojlovic