RIPE Code of Conduct and discussion on this list
Dear Working Group, Earlier, Denis sent a message that contained multiple ad-hominem attacks on the proposers of 2023-04 (Add AGGREGATED-BY-LIR status for IPv4 PA assignments). This is in conflict with our Code of Conduct. We will not tolerate breaches of the Code of conduct. As a reminder, our Code of Conduct urges us to "be open, considerate, and respectful." Further, "Aggressive communication" such as "Calling people offensive names" is not allowed. Denis has previously had a private warning. As this is his second breach in a discussion of this proposal, we will instruct the RIPE NCC to stop him from posting to the list for 30 days. Also, as the discussion has derailed, we will extend the Review Phase by four weeks. We encourage everyone to focus comments on the proposal and its potential impact. Do not comment on individuals, their characteristics, or motivations. Kind regards, Leo Vegoda, for the Address Policy WG co-chairs
Dear Leo Vegoda/ List Members! I can only speak to my perception of the situation, however i would ask you to please consider the content of this email: While the communication from dennis was certainly not in line with the code of conduct, i do see that he is very passionate about the topic. I am not sure if the proposers of 2023-04 would agree, but i do belive there is currently a very important discussion going on. This is about how the policy/language in it is interpreted and the resulting implications. Certainly, discussions can be heated, and i would also like denis to understand that there are acceptable and non-acceptable ways to communicate. At the same time, it feels very wrong to "cut" him out of the discussion at this point, by suspending his ability to post. Please note that i hold opposing views to his, but i would still like to hear/read his inputs, if he can manage to communicate it in a more constructive way going forward. So is there any alternative course of action that allows this discussion to move forward with dennis being able to participate at the current stage? That said, I fully agree and support the descision to extend the disucssion deadline by 4 Weeks! Kind Regards Sebastian On 1/11/24 14:42, Leo Vegoda wrote:
Dear Working Group,
Earlier, Denis sent a message that contained multiple ad-hominem attacks on the proposers of 2023-04 (Add AGGREGATED-BY-LIR status for IPv4 PA assignments). This is in conflict with our Code of Conduct. We will not tolerate breaches of the Code of conduct.
As a reminder, our Code of Conduct urges us to "be open, considerate, and respectful." Further, "Aggressive communication" such as "Calling people offensive names" is not allowed.
Denis has previously had a private warning. As this is his second breach in a discussion of this proposal, we will instruct the RIPE NCC to stop him from posting to the list for 30 days.
Also, as the discussion has derailed, we will extend the Review Phase by four weeks. We encourage everyone to focus comments on the proposal and its potential impact. Do not comment on individuals, their characteristics, or motivations.
Kind regards,
Leo Vegoda, for the Address Policy WG co-chairs
Hi Leo and AP WG co-chairs, On 11.01.2024 14:42, Leo Vegoda wrote:
Earlier, Denis sent a message
I'd assume that you refer to one of these two most recent emails from Denis of the "[address-policy-wg] 2023-04 Review Phase (Add AGGREGATED-BY-LIR status for IPv4 PA assignments)" thread: * Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2024 01:40:33 +0100 * Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2024 03:20:58 +0100 These two emails most certainly bear a quite robust style of writing. Also wrt. content they - taking Tore's emails also into account for a full picture - are heavily going in circles. However, having just re-read them carefully again, I fail to see multiple ad-hominem attacks and/or "Aggressive communication" such as "Calling people offensive names" as you line out here:
that contained multiple ad-hominem attacks on the proposers of 2023-04 (Add AGGREGATED-BY-LIR status for IPv4 PA assignments). This is in conflict with our Code of Conduct. We will not tolerate breaches of the Code of conduct.
As a reminder, our Code of Conduct urges us to "be open, considerate, and respectful." Further, "Aggressive communication" such as "Calling people offensive names" is not allowed.
Certainly, different people will come to different judgements in their respective assessments of third parties' communications styles - that is why would like to share mine: I truly believe that Denis' communication style is heavily "passionate" (thanks, Sebastian! ;-) but IMHO still fully within the boundaries set by the Code of Conduct. Therefore...
Denis has previously had a private warning. As this is his second breach in a discussion of this proposal, we will instruct the RIPE NCC to stop him from posting to the list for 30 days.
... I'd like to ask you as the AP WG co-chairs collective to reconsider your decision to temporarily revoke Denis' posting rights. Thank you!
Also, as the discussion has derailed, we will extend the Review Phase by four weeks.
This makes all the sense to me. Thanks again!
We encourage everyone to focus comments on the proposal and its potential impact. Do not comment on individuals, their characteristics, or motivations.
Strictly separating comments on the proposal and its potential impact from those of perceived motivations can be tricky at times - even more so as the proposals themselves bear their respective motivation. Or reasoning. Or whatever you want to call it. Doubting the motivation of the proposal and instead assuming another one should IMHO still be considered as part of a fruitful discussion. Yes, the line can get very thin very quickly. But we're not - see above - yet there and across it, I believe. All the best, -C.
Dear Working Group, It is with a heavy heart that I now unsubscribe from this working group. The discussion climate combined with double standards from the WG co-chairs regarding the Code of Conduct means that spending effort here leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I wish you the best of luck in trying to resolve matters to the best of the Internet community. -- Jan
Just checking if I am back....
participants (5)
-
Carsten Schiefner -
denis walker -
Jan Ingvoldstad -
Leo Vegoda -
Sebastian Graf