March 2021 - coc-tf - mailman.ripe.net

Fwd: [Community-Discuss] Call for comments is Open on the AFRINIC Community Code of Conduct
by Leo Vegoda 31 Mar '21

31 Mar '21

FYI ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: AFRINIC Communication <comms(a)afrinic.net> Date: Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 5:56 AM Subject: [Community-Discuss] Call for comments is Open on the AFRINIC Community Code of Conduct To: General Discussions of AFRINIC <community-discuss(a)afrinic.net> [Sent on behalf of the AFRINIC Governance Committee] [Version en français au bas] Dear community, On 31 August 2020, the Chief Executive Officer of AFRINIC pursuant to Article 3.1.7 of the Governance Committee’s Terms of Reference requested the committee’s assistance as follows: 1. Examine the text of the code of conduct to determine if updates are needed; 2. Consider if there are situations that may arise which are not adequately covered in the current text; 3. Advise on the process through which updates to the text can be made, discussed with the members and community, and finally approved; 4. Make such other recommendations as the Governance Committee may deem appropriate. https://afrinic.net/govcom/request <https://afrinic.net/govcom/request> In furtherance of the above, the Governance Committee has at its meeting held on 30 March 2021 decided to engage in a consultation process with its stakeholders which shall be opened from 01 April 2021 to 30 April 2021. You are hereby invited to share your valuable views and comments in respect of the above at govcom(a)afrinic.net <mailto:govcom@afrinic.net>. You may also consult the provisions of AFRINIC’s existing Code of Conduct at https://afrinic.net/code <https://afrinic.net/code>. The Governance Committee wishes to thank its stakeholders in advance for their valuable contribution and looks forward to continuous beneficial engagement. Mr Daniel Nanghaka Chair, Governance Committee ……………………………………………………………………. Cher communauté, Le 31 août 2020, le Directeur général d'AFRINIC, conformément à l'article 3.1.7 des termes de référence du Comité de gouvernance, a demandé l'assistance du comité comme suit : 1. Examiner le texte du code de conduite pour déterminer si des mises à jour sont nécessaires 2. Examiner s'il existe des situations susceptibles de se produire qui ne sont pas couvertes de manière adéquate par le texte actuel ; 3. Donner des conseils sur le processus par lequel les mises à jour du texte peuvent être faites, discutées avec les membres et la communauté, et finalement approuvées. 4. Faire toute autre recommandation que le comité de gouvernance peut juger comme étant appropriée. https://afrinic.net/govcom/request <https://afrinic.net/govcom/request> Dans le cadre de ce qui précède, le Comité de gouvernance a décidé, lors de sa réunion du 30 mars 2021, d'engager un processus de consultation avec ses parties prenantes qui sera ouvert du 1er avril 2021 au 30 avril 2021. Vous êtes par la présente invités à partager vos points de vue et commentaires sur ce qui précède à l'adresse govcom(a)afrinic.net. <mailto:govcom@afrinic.net>. Vous pouvez également consulter les dispositions du code de conduite existant d'AFRINIC à l'adresse https://afrinic.net/code <https://afrinic.net/code>. Le Comité de gouvernance souhaite remercier à l'avance ses parties prenantes pour leur précieuse contribution et se réjouit d'un engagement bénéfique continu. M. Daniel Nanghaka Président du Comité de gouvernance _______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list Community-Discuss(a)afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

1 0

This Friday's Meeting
by Brian Nisbet 30 Mar '21

30 Mar '21

Leo, all, I won't be available this Friday, apologies. As I flagged it's a holiday for HEAnet (it's complicated from an Irish point of view, but we're closed) and some things have come up that mean I won't be able to join at that time. Brian Brian Nisbet (he/him) Service Operations Manager HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland +35316609040 brian.nisbet(a)heanet.ie www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270

2 1

Sharing Summary of Comments with RIPE Discussion List
by Leo Vegoda 30 Mar '21

30 Mar '21

Hi, Several people have provided comments on the draft CoC but not indicated whether they think the current version is good enough, or if a specific change is required. I plan to post the table of comments on Monday and request people who have question marks next to their names to either specify that what we have is good enough or identify the change(s) they want in the document. That gives people about five business days to respond with specific answers. Kind regards, Leo

2 1

Mailing List Archives
by Brian Nisbet 26 Mar '21

26 Mar '21

Folks, If I search for our mailing list archives I find them happily, however if I go to https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/ I can't seem to find a link to them. This is probably something we want to rectify? Thanks, Brian Brian Nisbet (he/him) Service Operations Manager HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland +35316609040 brian.nisbet(a)heanet.ie www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270

2 2

Update following today's discussion
by Leo Vegoda 22 Mar '21

22 Mar '21

Hi, We had an informal chat today instead of a formal meeting as a couple of people were ill and others had time constraints. We chatted about both the amount of feedback we have seen so far and the upcoming RIPE meeting. I agreed to send a reminder to the list in case people missed the original announcement. We also discussed holding a BoF at RIPE 82 and thought it was a good idea. As the closing date for submissions is tomorrow, I have made a submission with this abstract and a very simple agenda: CoC TF BoF at RIPE 82 This BoF aims to present the work delivered by the Code of Conduct TF, gather input from the community on that work, and discuss the TF’s next steps: ● Code of Conduct team selection ● Reporting and operational procedures for the Code of Conduct team Separately, I proposed that we keep the same meeting cadence in Q2, with adjustments for public holidays, as it didn't seem to be a bad time for anyone. Kind regards, Leo

2 2

Fwd: [Community-Discuss] Participate in AFRINIC’s webinar on “Public Persecution vs. Constructive Criticism on AFRINIC mailing lists”
by Leo Vegoda 22 Mar '21

22 Mar '21

Dear TF, AFRINIC has scheduled a webinar "to discuss measures to foster a safe and all-inclusive environment" next Thursday following the recent application of its Code of Conduct: https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/2021-February/003969.… It could be an interesting discussion that helps us improve our own understanding of the tasks we have taken on. Kind regards, Leo ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: AFRINIC Communication <comms(a)afrinic.net> Date: Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 2:07 AM Subject: [Community-Discuss] Participate in AFRINIC’s webinar on “Public Persecution vs. Constructive Criticism on AFRINIC mailing lists” To: <community-discuss(a)afrinic.net> Dear Community members, AFRINIC would like to invite you to an upcoming webinar to consult with its community on the topic of ‘’Public Persecution vs. Constructive Criticism on AFRINIC mailing lists”, scheduled on Thursday 4 March 2021. After several concerns raised from community members on the virulence of exchanges on AFRINIC mailing lists, AFRINIC had to make very difficult decisions regarding how to best apply the community code of conduct to the public mailing lists in an attempt to safeguard the community from being subject to these inappropriate behaviours while allowing people to express thoughts and critics freely. https://afrinic.net/code AFRINIC does not take such decisions lightly and is in need of guidance from the community on the best way moving forward on dealing with the cases that clearly mix public harassment with useful feedback. Community members are invited to discuss measures to foster a safe and all-inclusive environment where community members, volunteers as well as AFRINIC staff feel supported and comfortable serving this community and exchanging ideas without the fear of being publicly harassed and personally attacked. It is key that we as a community have clear guidelines that allow us to prevent constructive criticism from turning into public persecution and slander. This is key to the creation of a safe and dynamic environment where opinions and ideas can flow freely and openly without fear of attack., Time: • 10:00 - 12:00 UTC (Ghana, Côte D'Ivoire) • 11:00 - 13:00 UTC WAT (Nigeria, Cameroon) • 14:00 - 16:00 UTC SAST (South Africa, Eswatini, Lesotho) • 15:00 - 17:00 UTC EAT (Kenya, Uganda) • 16:00 - 18:00 GST (Mauritius, Seychelles) Language: English Target: AFRINIC community members and any other person interested in how AFRINIC manages mailing lists Register in advance for this meeting: https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZwpduquqjkvE9Zjjv74MC33wGJHRcea2n… After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the meeting. AFRINIC Stakeholder Engagement Team _______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list Community-Discuss(a)afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

2 7

Draft Minutes - Code of Conduct TF: Tenth Call
by Antony Gollan 18 Mar '21

18 Mar '21

Dear TF members, Here is the third set of minutes. Cheers Ant *** *Draft Minutes - Code of Conduct TF: Tenth Call * 5 March 2021, 16:30-17:30 (UTC+1) *Present:* Denesh Bhabuta, Athina Fragkouli, Antony Gollan, Brian Nisbet, Leo Vegoda *Summary:* The TF discussed whether it would have time to get its draft CoC in place before the upcoming RIPE 82 meeting (assuming the community’s feedback was positive). It agreed that it was best to wait for a future meeting, once the process and CoC Team was ready. The TF discussed the content of its update at RIPE 82, noting that it would not want to invite feedback on the updated CoC if it had already been agreed by then. The process elements it thought they would want feedback on included how the WG Chairs and the RIPE CoC Team would work together, how the CoC could be updated in the future, and a framework for the CoC Team to report back to the community. *1. Minutes* Leo said they could approve these on the next call. *2. Agenda* Leo said he had added an agenda item to discuss the upcoming RIPE 82 meeting. There were no further changes. *3. Actions* *- RIPE NCC to prepare draft CoC for publication* Leo said their draft had been sent to the list and they were now receiving feedback. *- Leo to check with RIPE Chair Team to see if they are willing to accept anonymous feedback* Leo said they had done this and updated the relevant text in their announcement. *4. Timeline* Leo said it would obviously depend on the community’s feedback, but he was wondering if it would be possible to have their CoC in place for RIPE 82. He asked if the RIPE NCC could walk them through what was involved. Antony said he’d checked with Martina and all that was needed was an update to the RIPE Meeting terms on ripe.net and the RIPE CoC on the RIPE Meeting website. This was very straightforward and could be done almost immediately. That was assuming there were no legal complications. Athina said the existing CoC was not part of the terms and conditions; this was partly because the current terms were stronger than the CoC. For example, the RIPE NCC already had the right to remove attendees from the meeting. If they had a new CoC, they would have to review the terms to ensure they were compatible. Antony asked if this might be a case of simply adding a line that attendees agreed to adhere to the CoC. Athina agreed. Brian said he would like to see that, and he assumed the RIPE NCC could change its terms and conditions relatively quickly. His concern was if their draft brought in elements of process that they were not yet ready to deal with. For example, their current draft said that processes and the CoC Team were covered in separate documents that were not yet ready. Athina said they could have the CoC for the upcoming meeting as something that didn’t have any teeth. The teeth would be in the existing provisions of the meeting terms and conditions. Denesh asked if they would have enough time from when registration opened. Antony said he had checked that – if they allowed one month for community comments on the draft, that would leave one week for implementation. Martina had said that was plenty of time, given there wasn’t much needed. Antony said that as they already had a RIPE CoC, he was wondering if they really needed to touch the terms and conditions at all. Perhaps they could simply swap the existing CoC for their updated one (once accepted). They could then make changes to the meeting terms ahead of a future meeting once they had the other elements ready. Athina said what they had at the moment was a very short CoC and a review team (Trusted Contacts). If they updated this, did it mean the Trusted Contacts were responsible for handling complaints in the context of the new CoC? If so, perhaps it was better to wait until they had the new system in place. Denesh agreed with Athina. Brian said he was torn – on the one hand, this had already taken much longer than he would’ve liked. However, he also didn’t want to stumble at the final hurdle. He didn’t want to get this into place and then have people point out that they had no way to process reports and make it work. The whole point of the process was to make people feel safe to attend RIPE Meetings, and he didn’t want the Trusted Contacts to be confronted with a much bigger document. He thought it was more important to get this right for their next physical meeting, and to be proactive about telling people that this was what they were trying to do here. *5. RIPE 82* Leo said it would be good to get clear on what they wanted from the RIPE community at RIPE 82, and what they wanted to say. There was both a communication and a listening component to this. They also needed to think about how much time to allow. If they wanted a discussion, they would need a meaningful amount of time for this. Denesh thought at RIPE 82, they should focus on what the RIPE CoC was going to be. They wouldn’t be able to ask for feedback, as the comment period would already be finished by then. So they would need to focus on saying that this was the CoC that would be coming into place, and they would now be working on the process document. Antony said it might be difficult to fill an entire plenary slot with that. He wondered if it would be better to do a lightning talk, and then have a wider discussion about how they were approaching processes in a BoF. Denesh suggested that they do something more like a Brian and Sasha did in Rotterdam. Brian said he agreed with Denesh – they didn’t want to say that this was their proposed CoC. That should be done by RIPE 82 (assuming everything went well). They could say that this was the CoC, encourage everyone to read it, and hopefully they would have published the other process documents and could ask for feedback on these. It was important to allow people to give feedback, but they shouldn’t reopen discussion on the CoC itself. Denesh said he was thinking in terms of a quick summary of where they were at, and what they were looking for. Athina said they might have some specific questions by the RIPE Meeting and could get some answers there. Leo said one thing Salam had talked about on a previous call was how they applied the CoC to WG mailing lists. This might be something the community could give input on – whether this was handled exclusively by the CoC Team, or if they thought the WG Chair should take the lead here. He asked if there were other questions people could think of and if this might affect how they would work – for example whether they should work on the process ahead of the CoC Team document. Athina said more questions would probably emerge as they worked on the documents. Brian said the WG chairs were a key part of the conversation. However, they were not the rulers of their WGs – the community was – and so the chairs had to be guided by that. They should be able to ask the community those kinds of questions without having to seek the full agreement of the WG chairs. Leo said he definitely didn’t think they should be asking for permission to ask questions. Brian agreed but said there might be some who thought the chairs should be asking their WGs for input. But it was important to be clear that they were asking the RIPE plenary, which was the correct way to do it. Leo said sharing something that had been properly considered was important. They would only have so much time, so it would be good to share their question along with their thinking/rationale. The community could then suggest things they might not have considered. Leo said he was hearing that they should be thinking of the process element ahead of the composition of the CoC Team. And they were thinking of process elements especially in terms of WG mailing lists, and they might need an element about updating the CoC itself. It seemed that the process they were currently in was quite heavy. Expecting the community to go through the same TF process for future updates might be a bit much; they might need a timelier method for future updates. Brian agreed. He thought that once they had a CoC Team, that group would likely be the kind of people that cared about the CoC and would have ideas for improvements. They would also likely encounter issues where things needed to change based on experience. Leo said that to some extent, if they were going to use input from the CoC Team, they would need some kind of reporting framework. They would need to ensure there was a solid factual basis for improvements. He also thought this would need some attention from Athina, to ensure they handled this information sensitively. Leo summarised and said he had noted that at RIPE 82 they would be telling people that this was basically the new RIPE CoC and they were now working on the implementation. They were now interested in hearing from the community how it should be implemented and had specific questions that they needed feedback on. These included: 1) how the WG chairs work with the RIPE CoC Team to ensure mailing list discussion is appropriate, 2) how to update the CoC in light of the CoC Team’s experience, on the basis of 3) a transparent reporting framework that has undergone the appropriate legal review. Leo said these were three agenda items for upcoming meetings that would need a lot of thought. The reporting framework would need some input from the RIPE NCC on tools and legal aspects. He didn’t know how much time and effort that would take, it would require Athina and Antony to check internally and come back with a timeframe for a proposal. All of them would need to think of the other two items. Antony asked if there would need to be some degree of separation when it came to the CoC Team proposing changes to the CoC. Brian said he didn’t think the CoC Team should be able to make changes unilaterally with no room for comment – that certainly wasn’t a very “RIPE” approach. But he did want them to be engaged and interested in making changes to the CoC. Leo said he imagined those proposals would need to be reviewed, discussed and approved by the RIPE community. But that process also shouldn’t be so complicated and make it too difficult to reach a consensus that important changes were held back. Brian clarified that the CoC Team shouldn’t be in any privileged position; they should essentially be like regular community members in this process. But he thought they would likely be the type of people who were engaged and interested in improving the CoC. Antony asked if they could think about this in connection with any reporting requirements the group might have. So, for example, if the CoC Team reported back every two RIPE Meetings (or whatever) on how implementing the CoC was working – they could combine this with highlighting any issues with the CoC itself. The community could then run with this. Leo asked if he was thinking in terms of sharing PDP experience. Antony said what had made him think of that was something he’d seen relating to their yearly transparency report where they shared the number of LEA requests they had received. He imagined if there was an expectation that the CoC Team would report back on a periodic basis, then you already had a defined space (and an associated habit) where they could also share any issues relating to the CoC. This might avoid the CoC Team having to reinvent the wheel in terms of considering how to raise a potential change with the community. Athina said there was an analogy with the RIPE NCC’s Arbiters Panel. At every RIPE Meeting they had a meeting with themselves where they shared experiences, and every year they had a larger meeting where they asked for legal advice and came up with suggestions for improvements to the process. Of course, in the Articles of Association, this process was quite defined. The Executive Board then decided if the proposed changes should be implemented and this was brought to the RIPE NCC General Meeting for a vote. She thought they could come up with some kind of structure that was similar. Leo said they didn’t need to come to a conclusion on this call. *6. AOB * Denesh said he wanted to raise one procedural point: if any TF members responded to feedback on the mailing list, they should consider that this might be seen as speaking on behalf of the entire TF. They should therefore make it clear that any comments were made on an individual basis. Any responses on behalf of the TF should be agreed with the rest of the group first. Leo also said that if they wanted to respond early in the discussion period, it might seem like they were trying to shut down discussion. If they wanted to respond, they might consider doing so off-list, to avoid creating this impression. Denesh asked if that meant they should try to refrain from responding on the list. Leo said they should act as individuals based on what they thought was best. But it was just something they should be aware of – in terms of how others might interpret this. Denesh also noted that a comment on the list made him think of a common notion that people often shared – which he thought of as “those were different times.” The idea was that things hadn’t been such a problem in the past because “those were different times.” But that was largely because back then, people hadn’t raised the issue or come forward. He thought they should think of a response to this point when it was raised, not necessarily something combative, but just to note that people now thought these problems needed to be addressed. Athina noted that the RIPE NCC Executive Board had asked the Executive Board Elections Task Force to act as the CoC Team for the upcoming elections. Many of the TF members had agreed and this would be announced soon. This meant they had a CoC and CoC Team for this that was totally independent from the CoC TF’s work. Leo asked if this was something they should mention in their RIPE 82 update. Athina said the RIPE NCC would be publishing information about this ahead of the GM, so there was no need. Brian said he didn’t think this was something they needed to comment on. He thought they should keep the two processes as separate as possible. Antony asked if he should let any emails sent to the TF mailing list through moderation or if he should hold these in future. Leo said the list was publicly archived and they had communicated this. He preferred they err on the side of letting things through rather than stopping them. *7. Actions* *Action: RIPE NCC to review reporting requirements to inform a process of improvements to the CoC (likely tooling and legal analysis). ** ** **Action: TF to think about how the CoC Team and the WG Chairs would work together to manage discussions on mailing lists. ** ** **Action: TF to think about the appropriate level of process to allow further improvements to the CoC. ** ** **Action: TF to think about their schedules between April/June and consider changing call times. This can be coordinated via the ML to allow a new schedule before April. ** * End of call.

1 0

Draft Minutes - Code of Conduct TF: Ninth Call
by Antony Gollan 17 Mar '21

17 Mar '21

Hi all, Here's the second set of minutes. Cheers Ant **** * *Draft Minutes - Code of Conduct TF: Ninth Call * 18 February 2021, 16:30-17:30 (UTC+1) *Present:*Denesh Bhabuta, Brian Nisbet, Ulka Uthale, Leo Vegoda, Salam Yamout *Summary:*The TF agreed that it was ready to publish the draft CoC and ask the RIPE community for feedback. The approach for how to develop the next two documents was discussed. The TF noted that it would need to think about how the future CoC Team would interact with other parts of RIPE, such as the WG Chairs. The TF discussed how it would respond to feedback on its draft CoC; it agreed to focus on collecting input rather than responding to every point on the mailing list. *1. Minute**s* The minutes from the previous call had not yet been sent and Leo said they could move this to the next call. *2. Agenda* There were no changes to the agenda. *3. Actions* *- RIPE NCC to finalise and share draft CoC for publication* *- Leo to draft and share announcement text for draft CoC* Leo said Antony had shared an updated draft CoC and updated the draft announcement – so these two actions were completed. *4. Publish?* Leo noted that Antony had added a few editorial comments and made some changes to the draft CoC and ran through them. He asked if anyone wanted to make any further changes or if they were ready to publish and make any required changes at a later point. The TF agreed that it was ready to publish the draft document. Leo said he was a little wary of publishing a document that was too final and indicated that they weren’t open to comments. So even if there were imperfections, this might not be a problem. Leo said he would work with the RIPE NCC to get the draft document published. *Action: RIPE NCC to publish draft CoC on a webpage to share with the RIPE community. * *5. Upcoming Meeting* Leo said it would be good for them to think about planning the next two documents, especially as they would have at least a month while the community gave feedback on their updated CoC draft. Leo said there would be some dependencies between the process and the CoC Team, and some interactions between the CoC Team and, for example, RIPE WG Chairs. They would need to think about this. There would also be requirements for tooling, which the RIPE NCC was already thinking about. And there would be some data governance aspects about how reports were managed, and this might interact with tooling that was provided to WG Chairs – for example, if one potential outcome was to ban someone from posting to mailing list while allowing them to continue receiving emails. Brian noted that managing and moderating mailing lists was already an active discussion between the Working Group Chairs Collective and the RIPE NCC. He agreed that they would need to think about what they were responsible for as a TF. Maybe in some cases they would simply be pointing out questions that needed answering, and working out who the responsible party was. Leo thought there was definitely an onus on them to work out who the responsible party was. He didn’t think they needed to define a list of actions that needed to be taken in response to a CoC violation. He thought it would be good if there could be some guidance given to the RIPE NCC in terms of potential outcomes, to avoid last-minute software changes being needed. Salam said it was up to them to write what needed to be done – and this would be not only the principle but the tooling. As RIPE NCC staff were part of the group, they could then decide what was practical. Leo said he didn’t think they would need to look at specific tooling requirements. But he thought it might be worth listing what kind of actions/procedures might be needed. The RIPE NCC could then integrate this into its systems. He imagined the RIPE NCC’s tooling could change over time – this was fine, so long as they specified what mailing lists needed to do (for example). But there was more to it than that, there was an interaction between the process and the CoC Team. The more specific the process document became, the more impact this had on the CoC Team, and they also needed to think about how this might affect the selection process. One of the things they had discussed on an earlier call was that they needed to allow space for the CoC Team to make its own decisions and not make the process overly defined or legalistic. He thought they should focus on what agenda items they needed to look at. He imagined this would take some back-and-forward, because none of them would come up with all of the answers on their own. Denesh asked whether the first step would be to ask the RIPE NCC what their current processes related to this were. Leo said that would be helpful, and they’d already had some of that in terms of the report from the Trusted Contacts, but there was the element of what was involved if the CoC Team banned someone from a RIPE Meeting. This would involve some form of interaction between the CoC Team and the RIPE NCC’s meeting software. So, getting some feedback from the RIPE NCC on what was currently possible would be helpful. Salam said she wasn’t clear on what Leo was after. She also didn’t see the relation between the CoC Team and the WG Chairs. Brian said as a WG Chair he had sometimes removed people from the mailing list for misbehaviour, on the basis of the CoC. He could imagine cases in the future where someone made a complaint to the CoC Team instead of the WG Chair. It would be interesting to think about what happened if the CoC Team decided that a violation had occurred and the WG Chair disagreed. As a community they would need to think about this, as it created a second root to some degree. This somewhat already existed with the Trusted Contacts, but the updated CoC would make this more explicit. There could also be issues with in-person WG sessions, which took place within the larger RIPE Meeting context. So, while there were things that WG Chairs and the CoC Team could do, there was a lot of potential for interaction and also for disagreement there. Salam said if she misbehaved in a WG session, it would be either the WG Chair or another meeting attendee that would report her to the CoC Team. A certain process would then start, and it would reach a decision on her behaviour. This would result in an action – whether she was barred from the RIPE Meeting, given a warning, or whatever. She couldn’t see the role of the WG Chair in this process, unless they were part of the CoC Team or were questioned as part of its investigation. Brian said this was where it became interesting. He might say he was making a decision as WG Chair to ban someone from the mailing list without referring them to the CoC Team. Salam said she understood. In a perfect world, they would keep these separate – if a chair had a problem with the behaviour of someone in their WG, they could report them to the CoC Team and let that process take its course. Brian said there could be a point where someone reported a mail to the CoC Team, who decided they should be banned. Did that mean that he (as chair) was bound by the CoC Team’s decision? It was entirely possible that he should be – but he could anticipate some people objecting to this kind of structure being forced onto the WGs. In response to Brian’s point, Denesh said that things were evolving over time, and perhaps WGs needed to change as part of this and become more structured. Leo said that until now, the Trusted Contacts had mostly been responsible for doing things during a RIPE Meeting. However, they were changing the scope to “everything RIPE.” This meant the CoC Team might be called to do things between RIPE Meetings, if there was a vigorous discussion on a mailing list, for example. They would need to think about this, as they put together the CoC Team document. They needed to set expectations for the people who would volunteer for the role. While it was likely that they would always have a RIPE NCC staff member on the CoC Team, that person might not be in a position to make all of those decisions – and relying on the RIPE NCC’s staff to manage the RIPE community might put them into a difficult position. He thought it was worth starting this discussion now and perhaps sharing agenda items on the TF mailing list over the next few weeks. Leo noted that he had the initial structure document and it would be helpful for TF members to review this and decide where content should sit and what might need to be added/removed. This document was simply intended to spark discussion and feedback. Salam asked where it said that the WG Chairs function was to monitor their mailing lists. Brian noted that in the Working Group Chair Job Description and Procedures (ripe-692), it said that WG Chairs were responsible for guiding mailing list discussions, though this didn’t mention moderation specifically. He added that there were currently discussions among the chairs that they might improve the tools/workflow to allow them to enable moderation more easily. Leo said it might be that they needed to recommend an update to other documents, and it might be that the WG Chair job description needed changes. Salam asked if they should consider making all WG chairs part of the CoC Team. Leo said he didn’t know if every WG chair needed to be trained. He noted that Jordi had been talking about the need for every chair to be selected in the same manner, as they all developed policy. Leo had asked the RIPE NCC’s Policy Officer for numbers on how many policies went through the different WGs. This was very heavily weighted towards the Address Policy WG, and dropped off quite abruptly when looking at other WGs. This made him think that some WGs had different focuses – some were more focused on organising face-to-face meetings, others were geared towards facilitating mailing list discussions. He wondered if it made sense to have one job description for all of them. Brian said he’d spent a lot of time in the past trying to come up with a unified procedure for selecting WG Chairs after Rob had asked him to do this. This hadn’t gotten far, as there was significant resistance, especially from those who strongly believed that a WG must come up with its own processes in a bottom-up way. He thought they should have a single procedure, but he was wary of the TF forcing the WG Chairs to do certain things, and thought it was better for them to invest their energies elsewhere. Leo said if they were going to have RIPE WG Chairs involved in making decisions related to the CoC, they would need to be aware that there would be some work required between RIPE Meetings. That was all he was trying to suggest there. Leo said they needed to think about how ambiguous they wanted to be – as they wanted to allow space for flexibility – though they wanted to be understandable. Salam agreed with Leo’s approach, but thought it was a matter of principles. The CoC Team was a disciplinary body that would do an investigation and judge an individual’s conduct, and apply punishment if someone violated the CoC. So, she thought they should not blur the line between this body and other roles, such as WG Chairs. So, as a matter of principle, any disciplinary action should come from the CoC Team according to its processes – and not from WG Chairs. Leo said he thought they had achieved what he had intended under this agenda item – to start thinking about what they wanted to discuss. He said he would create an action on him to share the structure document on the list, and for TF members to propose agenda items on the mailing list. *Action: Leo to share draft structure document. * *Action: TF members to propose agenda items on the mailing list. * *6. AOB* Brian asked how they would share their draft with the community – whether they would just publish it and leave it for the community to comment, or whether they should take a more engaged approach and actively discuss it with the community, as with the PDP. Salam said that was a good question. She asked if they should respond to any questions as individuals or if they should coordinate this via a dedicated person. Denesh thought they should just put it out there with a deadline. They would get a range of views, but it was their role as a TF to review the feedback and work out what was usable and what was not. Leo thought they should prepare a summary of all the messages that came in, and share this with the community. Here, they could clarify what changes they would make to address these points. Otherwise they could say that they had worked with the RIPE Chair Team and this was now the CoC for RIPE. Brian agreed with this approach. However, he said they should make it clear how this was going to work – because people might be expecting something more interactive like the PDP. They should make it clear that they were gathering input and would not be responding to individual comments as they came in. Leo said that allowing for anonymous feedback was good and it might be best if people shared this with the RIPE Chair Team directly. Brian said he had been thinking more in terms of “private” than “anonymous”. It was about allowing a solution for people that wanted to raise a concern without having to do this via a public forum. But he supported this approach, provided the RIPE Chair Team was happy with it. *7. Review actions* *Action: RIPE NCC to publish draft CoC on a webpage to share with the RIPE community. * *Action: Leo to share draft template/structure document. * *Action: TF members to propose agenda items on the mailing list. * *Action: Leo to check with RIPE Chair Team to see if they are willing to accept anonymous feedback. * *Action: Leo to work with the RIPE NCC to modify the announcement email as required. * **

1 0

Draft Minutes - Code of Conduct TF: Eighth Call
by Antony Gollan 17 Mar '21

17 Mar '21

Dear TF members, Very sorry for the delay with the recent batch of minutes. Here's the first set from January. Two more still to come! Cheers Ant *** * * *Draft Minutes - COC TF: **Eighth**Call **22**January 2021, 16:30-17:30 (UTC+1) * *Attendees:*Denesh Bhabuta, Athina Fragkouli, Antony Gollan, Brian Nisbet, Leo Vegoda, Salam Yamout *Summary: *The TF discussed whether to include wording in the CoC that it cannot be used to appeal PDP decisions. While it agreed the two processes were separate, it decided this was not required. The TF also decided not to include “defamation” in the CoC, as this would depend on the specifics of the case and might used against others in bad faith. A line was added to clarify that only “unacceptable behaviours” could constitute a CoC violation. It was noted that while the CoC would be applied to other RIPE NCC events (that did not have a PC), there might be issues with the CoC Team not being present at the meeting to handle reports or not being familiar with the local culture. *1. Minutes* ** Leo said they had two sets of minutes from previous meetings. Both were approved without comment. *2. Agenda* ** There were no changes to the agenda. ** *3. Actions* ** -*RIPE NCC to review text under Where this CoC Applies (final two paragraphs)* Antony said he and Athina had looked at this before the call, but they weren’t quite there yet. He said they would have this done before the next call. Leo asked him to notify the group via the mailing list once this was done. -*TF members to think about whether there should be a statement that the CoC cannot be used to appeal consensus decisions within the PDP, and also to review the Behaviour section ahead of next call.* ** To recap, Leo said there could be a case where a consensus call was made in a WG and someone then complained that this outcome was the result of something that contravened the CoC. So there was a question about whether this should go through a WG process or the CoC process. He asked if there were any thoughts on this. Salam said the CoC was about people’s conduct – while a consensus call was about whether they agreed on A or B. She couldn’t see how these could conflict. Denesh agreed with Salam – they were completely separate processes. He thought it came down to the WG Chair. If the chair thought the report was a matter for the CoC, they could direct it there. Brian said he thought they had already agreed these were separate and he personally didn’t think there should be any relation between the two. The question was whether they wanted to have a statement in the CoC that this was the case. He didn’t think they should have such a statement, as it and might seem strange. If this became an issue later, they could worry about it then. If someone felt they were being bullied as part of a PDP discussion, that was a CoC matter – and the PDP continued separately from this. It was possible to imagine cases where someone claimed they weren’t able to pursue their proposal due to a reaction from the community – but the solution was to resolve this via the CoC before going back to the PDP. Leo said he thought there was the potential for someone to claim that a WG Chair was biased against them for a CoC-related reason. At that point, because the WG Chair was the person being targeted by the complaint, he thought the only way this could be resolved would be to have the decision about which process to follow go to another group – probably the WG Chair Collective. However, he didn’t think they needed to put this into the CoC itself. If they did want to include this, it could go into the process document rather than the CoC. Brian said the key point was that if someone didn’t think the WG Chair’s decision was correct, they had the right to appeal to the WG Chairs Collective. There could even be a CoC complaint and a PDP appeal on the same issue simultaneously, but they should be separate. Leo said they could say that the first half of that action was done – they’d thought about it and didn’t want to address it in the CoC document itself. The next part was to review the behaviour section. As most of the TF had reviewed this, they could mark this as done. Salam asked if they should have something in the CoC on “defamation” – she had noticed this recently in a mailing list thread. Denesh said he thought things like slander, libel and defamation were already covered in the section on jurisdiction: once a legal line was crossed, it became a legal matter rather than something for the CoC to address. He asked Athina if that was correct. Salam said if someone defamed her via email, she probably wouldn’t sue them. Athina said she understood what Salam meant. The RIPE NCC had seen two cases of such an accusation recently. On the mailing lists, someone had posted facts and information in an analysis regarding how someone was involved in a fraudulent case. This person asked the RIPE NCC to remove the content because it was defamatory. It was very difficult to define whether this was defamation or if it was writing down known facts. At the same time, they had also decided to moderate someone because they were doing the same to others, because this was a violation of the CoC. She thought perhaps they should add this to the CoC and leave it to the CoC Team to make this evaluation depending on the case. Salam said Athina had a good point. The RIPE NCC had removed content because it believed it was a violation of the CoC. Provided it continued to do this, then they wouldn’t need anything in the CoC. But if the CoC Team would be making this decision, then they would need to have something in there. Athina said there were differing outcomes depending on the specifics of the case. If someone posted illegal content, then the RIPE NCC had an obligation to remove it, as otherwise they were liable. It might also be that an outcome of an evaluation by the CoC Team was that they had to exclude someone from a mailing list – but this would be a separate thing. Brian said he was strongly against adding this to the unacceptable behaviours. He thought it became too easy for someone to say that they were being defamed. When it came to whether they should ask a group of people to decide whether something was defamatory or otherwise – he wasn’t a fan of that. He’d often had things said about him on the mailing lists that would fall into one category of unacceptable behaviour or the another. His concerns were that A) they were asking a team to make a legal judgement and B) People could use this against others in a malicious way. If claims were untrue, then other legal steps might need to be taken, but he thought this should be separate from the CoC. Athina said other unacceptable behaviours that were in the CoC could also be subject to a legal evaluation. An example was making threats, which was also illegal. Brian said some threats were quite literal – “I’m going to kill you.” Athina noted that she often said she was going to kill people as a joke. Leo said he thought they could all agree that email was quite a bad medium for conveying tone and people could always misinterpret things. He thought they could mark this action as done and move on to reviewing behaviours. ** *4. Publication * ** *Behaviours* ** Leo said he wasn’t sure if they wanted Unacceptable Behaviours to be an exhaustive list.People could always find creative ways to be cruel and so he didn’t think they could be comprehensive – it had to be examples. He had taken the opening paragraph from the Python CoC, and hadn’t made any changes beyond updating “Python community” to “RIPE community.” He asked if there should be any further changes to this. The group discussed whether they should use “RIPE participants” vs “members of the RIPE community.” There was support for the former, and they agreed that this should be used consistently throughout the document. The group also discussed whether they should use wording along the lines of “RIPE community members are…” vs “RIPE community members should be…” Looking at “Expected Behaviours”, Athina noted that it was much easier to enforce a list of “do not’s” as opposed to a bunch of “do’s”. She had taken the liberty of adding a line stating that the “do’s” were an aspirational list – making it clear that failing to display these behaviours was not necessarily a CoC violation. Brian said that failing to “Accept feedback gracefully” might include telling someone to “F-off”. Athina said it could also describe someone who acted in a less offensive way but nevertheless did not accept feedback gracefully. Looking at the list they had, she wondered if someone could make a complaint because someone was not “open”, for example. The group agreed to include some wording along the lines of what Athina had proposed to address this. Leo asked if there were any comments on the list of “Unacceptable behaviours”. He noted that he had grouped these in alphabetical order to avoid the perception that some were more important than others. Salam asked what happened if a person clearly discriminated against someone, but their actions were not something that was included on the list. The group agreed that they could have some wording to the effect of “this is not an exhaustive list.” Brian said this was one of the biggest sticking points in CoC debates and created space for rules lawyering, but no one had yet found a way around this. Athina noted the phrase “This includes but is not limited to:” and said the latter part was redundant. However, she could see the value in having this. If they did decide to keep this, then they should make it consistent throughout the document (as “but is not limited to:” was not in the scope, for example). Brian also found this redundant. However, he recognised that he was a native English speaker. He agreed that they should be consistent whichever way they went. The group agreed to include both throughout the document. Leo said this meant they were at the end of Document 1, though there was still the review of a couple of paragraphs that the RIPE NCC had to do. *5. AOB* ** Antony said he and Athina had been looking at the text about how this would apply to groups such as ENOG or MENOG. The current text said this would be up to the relevant PCs to apply, and the RIPE NCC would apply it to its own meetings. This was fine. However, when they started thinking about things like RIPE NCC Regional Meetings, for which there was no PC, they started to wonder what would happen if a complaint was made via the CoC – especially if the meeting was quite far away from where the CoC Team was based. Did the complaint go to the RIPE CoC Team, or should the RIPE NCC have its own CoC Team for these complaints? Leo said this document was about what the CoC was and where it applied. He suggested they think about the implementation later. Athina agreed with Leo’s comment. However, one issue was that the draft document touched on the implementation a little bit. In the rationale, the third goal talked about a transparent framework for report handling. So this was not entirely separate. When they talked about the RIPE Meetings, they had the RIPE CoC Team. When they talked about ENOG, SEE or MENOG meetings, they would work this out with the relevant PC, which might create its own CoC Team. But if it was a RIPE NCC Regional Meeting, did they send reports via the RIPE CoC Team, or was this too far away and the team wouldn’t feel comfortable making a determination in these cases? Brian said he didn’t think it would be unfair to the future CoC Team to ask it to fill this role in cases where the RIPE NCC organised an event for the RIPE community and there wasn’t a relevant body (PC, RIPE NCC Executive Board) to form a CoC Team. Perhaps this might come with the understanding that the process was a little slower than usual. Salam asked if this meant the same rules wouldn’t apply in all regions. Athina said this was about how reports were handled rather than the rules. When it came to RIPE Meetings, they would have the RIPE CoC Team. When it came to MENOG or ENOG Meetings, they might like to have their own team – or perhaps would feel comfortable using the RIPE CoC Team for that. Salam said she thought each community should have a few local members who underwent the same training as the RIPE CoC Team. Antony said the example he was thinking of was something like “RIPE NCC Regional Meeting: Kazakhstan” – which would be a RIPE NCC run event that didn’t have any interaction with a local PC. Athina said it was something they might need input on from the community – whether it was appropriate or they felt comfortable having the CoC Team performing such evaluations. And also, whether these local communities felt comfortable having their reports evaluated by a group that was not present at the meeting, and potentially was not familiar with their culture. Leo said this could be something they discussed with the community. The TF might say they were very happy with the other sections, but this part needed more input. This might be preferable to investing a lot of effort on this aspect – only for it to later change based on feedback. Brian said he would prefer they had someone at these events who could handle reports over excluding these communities from the CoC. Leo said they were out of time and proposed an action on the RIPE NCC. *Action: RIPE NCC to clean up the draft CoC and circulate it on the list (perhaps via a separate Google doc).* ** Leo also noted that the RIPE Chair Team was asking whether the chat at a RIPE Meeting should be preserved, or whether it should be ephemeral and disappear. This might have implications for the CoC Team’s work. Athina suggested they consider whether they should remove the bullet point on report handling from the rationale of the CoC, as this was not addressed in the document. Leo said that by getting the CoC document finished, they had passed their first milestone. He thanked the TF members for their work so far. *Actions* ** *Action: RIPE NCC to review text about where the CoC aplied at the fringes of the formal RIPE community and moving into associated communities* *Action: RIPE NCC to clean up the draft CoC and circulate it on the list (perhaps via a separate Google doc).* End of meeting.

1 0

Fwd: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE NCC General Meeting Changes in 2021
by Leo Vegoda 17 Mar '21

17 Mar '21

Hi, This article links to the RIPE NCC EB elections Code of Conduct and the team that will evaluate reports of breaches. Worth a read. Kind regards, Leo ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Fergal Cunningham <fergalc(a)ripe.net> Date: Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 6:44 AM Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE NCC General Meeting Changes in 2021 To: <ncc-services-wg(a)ripe.net> Dear colleagues, There a few changes to the processes for the RIPE NCC General Meeting this year. In a RIPE Labs article, I outline some of the main changes we're introducing, all aimed at safeguarding this forum for members: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/fergalc/general-meeting-changes-in-2021 Best regards, Fergal Cunningham Head of Membership Engagement RIPE NCC

1 0

Draft agenda for upcoming meeting
by Leo Vegoda 14 Mar '21

14 Mar '21

Dear TF, Here is a draft agenda for Thursday's meeting. I'd like to settle the schedule for Q2 and discuss the possibility of a BoF at RIPE 82 where we can get feedback and discussion from the community. Many thanks, Leo Title Who What Time Outcome Minutes TF Review the draft minutes of previous meetings. Agree any changes. Finalize. 5 mins Minutes Agenda TF Review agenda and adjust as needed. 5 mins Agenda Actions All Review status of actions from the previous meeting: - RIPE NCC to evaluate a reporting mechanism to support future updates to the CoC. - Everyone to think through how WG Chairs can work in partnership with the CoC Team to manage e-mail list discussion - Everyone to think through what kind of process might be appropriate for future updates to the CoC. - Everyone to share their preferences for meeting dates and times between April and June 10 mins Status Meeting schedule All Can we continue meeting on the current schedule with adjustments where there are public holidays <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FGSNCe7rv680v99pMUmbfYytt5TBzJsVtJ44-T4…> ? 5 mins Decision Discussion All Status of discussion so far. Are there any messages we want to respond to as a TF? If so, how? 10 mins Discussion & decision if needed RIPE 82 Leo/All Should we hold a CoC BoF at RIPE 82? If so, what changes should we make to this draft agenda? 1. Present the current (draft) CoC and explain the key changes from 2. what we have now and the proposed v3. 3. Present the implementation issues: 1. Processes 2. Tools 3. Recruitment 4. Encourage input from the community. 5. Next steps 15 mins Decision AOB All Any other business 5 mins - Actions NCC Review actions agreed during the meeting 5 mins Action list

1 0

Re: [coc-tf] April-June meeting schedule
by Leo Vegoda 09 Mar '21

09 Mar '21

Hi Denesh, You all should now have invitations to the document. Kind regards, Leo On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 3:07 PM Denesh Bhabuta <denesh(a)icloud.com> wrote: > > Hi Leo > > I am unable to access the document. > > Regards > Denesh > > > On 8 Mar 2021, at 22:58, Leo Vegoda <leo(a)vegoda.org> wrote: > > > > Hi Brian, > > > > While I'm happy to continue meeting at the same time on Fridays, I > > thought it might be worth looking more broadly in case anyone needs to > > change the schedule to accommodate their day job. > > > > I have started a little document to look at all the public holidays > > and industry events over the next three months. I'm sure it's not > > complete but I think it's a good place to start. From a public > > holidays perspective, it looks like Fridays are better than Mondays. > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FGSNCe7rv680v99pMUmbfYytt5TBzJsVtJ44-T4… > > > > Kind regards, > > > > Leo > > > > On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 1:18 AM Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet(a)heanet.ie> wrote: > >> > >> Leo, > >> > >> The immediate issue I can see right now is the meeting on the 2nd of April, which is Good Friday. This isn't because I will be sitting mournfully with all the technology turned off, but I will be on a day off and virtually attending a Sci-Fi convention that should be in Birmingham. > >> > >> However if that day/time suits everyone else best, I will be able to rearrange things to attend. > >> > >> As we move into June I think that meetings would be scheduled for the 11th and 25th of that month, on our current schedule, neither of which I would be available for, apologies, but the other Fridays, and most other days (barring the week of the 21st - 25th) are all fine. > >> > >> Brian > >> > >> Brian Nisbet > >> > >> Service Operations Manager > >> > >> HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network > >> > >> 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland > >> > >> +35316609040 brian.nisbet(a)heanet.ie www.heanet.ie > >> > >> Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270 > >> > >> ________________________________ > >> From: coc-tf <coc-tf-bounces(a)ripe.net> on behalf of Leo Vegoda <leo(a)vegoda.org> > >> Sent: Saturday 6 March 2021 14:38 > >> To: coc-tf(a)ripe.net <coc-tf(a)ripe.net> > >> Subject: [coc-tf] April-June meeting schedule > >> > >> CAUTION[External]: This email originated from outside of the organisation. Do not click on links or open the attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe. > >> > >> > >> Dear TF, > >> > >> One of our actions from yesterday's meeting was to identify the times > >> or days that are good or not possible, so we can develop an April-June > >> meeting schedule. > >> > >> Please use this thread to identify days, times, or patterns to avoid. > >> Once we have those we can run a poll to find the best of the days and > >> times that are available. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> Leo > >> > >> -- > >> coc-tf mailing list > >> coc-tf(a)ripe.net > >> https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.rip… > > > > -- > > coc-tf mailing list > > coc-tf(a)ripe.net > > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/coc-tf >

2 1

April-June meeting schedule
by Leo Vegoda 08 Mar '21

08 Mar '21

Dear TF, One of our actions from yesterday's meeting was to identify the times or days that are good or not possible, so we can develop an April-June meeting schedule. Please use this thread to identify days, times, or patterns to avoid. Once we have those we can run a poll to find the best of the days and times that are available. Thanks, Leo

3 3

Announcing the draft CoC for community review
by Leo Vegoda 04 Mar '21

04 Mar '21

Dear TF, Antony has created a web page for the draft CoC here: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-documents/other-documents/ripe-… I plan to announce the draft tomorrow, using the text here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/11_yFznrdw6TAs40t2I8edRUjfWGho10q7f99gFo… Following a suggestion from Mirjam, I have already alerted the Trusted Contacts to the draft text so that they know the announcement is coming and that their input is valued. Kind regards, Leo

2 1

Draft agenda for upcoming meeting
by Leo Vegoda 01 Mar '21

01 Mar '21

Dear TF, Here is a draft agenda for Friday's meeting. I struck out the agenda item on minutes again. The core discussion is to look at whether we could have the new text agreed as the Code of Conduct that applies at RIPE 82, and to look at our order of operations for documents 2 and 3 <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zkYiQPkX6tq09tdpQdL_URbvfnILgwrqRn2zq2e…>. Please review the draft structures again ahead of our meeting and consider whether we should be looking at working on one document ahead of the other, or if we need to work on them in parallel. Also, please think about whether we will need any additional information to make progress on these documents. Many thanks, Leo Title Who What Time Outcome Minutes TF Review the draft minutes of the last two meetings. Agree any changes. Finalize. 0 mins Minutes Agenda TF Review agenda and adjust as needed. 5 mins Agenda Actions All Review status of actions from the previous meeting: - RIPE NCC to prepare agreed text for publication. - Leo to update RIPE Chair Team on agreement to accept feedback in private where necessary and update draft announcement <https://docs.google.com/document/d/11_yFznrdw6TAs40t2I8edRUjfWGho10q7f99gFo…> text. (done) 5 mins Status Timeline NCC Evaluate whether the updated CoC could be in place in time to be included in the registration terms for RIPE 82 10 mins Information Order of Operations All Does it make sense to work on process (Document 3) before looking at the Code of Conduct Team (Document 2)? 15 mins Decision AOB All Any other business 5 mins - Actions NCC Review actions agreed during the meeting 5 mins Action list

1 0