Dear TF members,
Here are the minutes from our last call.
Cheers
Kjerstin
***
24 March 16:30 (UTC+1)
Attendees: Antony Gollan, Brian Nisbet, Leo Vegoda
Scribe: Kjerstin Burdiek
Summary: The TF reviewed the latest draft of the CoC process document. They made some changes to the wording but found the document overall satisfactory to share as a draft for community comments. They were particularly seeking feedback about whether the CoC Team or the RIPE Chair Team should have final authority when enacting serious consequences and about how detailed the records of the CoC Team’s investigations should be. Following up on the actions of the previous meeting, Antony shared the option he had found for CoC Team training. There was a law firm that specialised in CoC-related training that could offer in-person or virtual training and even onsite training at RIPE Meetings. The TF decided to look further into this company but to still consider other options as well. Additionally, Antony shared the plan he had drafted for a CoC awareness campaign for the community. The TF noted that they should implement some of his ideas if there was time but should focus on publishing the process document ahead of RIPE 84. At the RIPE Meeting, the TF would also ask WG Chairs and the RIPE Chair Team to make participants aware of the new CoC so everyone would feel more welcome in the community and more comfortable participating. The TF concluded the meeting by resolving to give all TF members a week to review the document on the list before publishing it as a draft for the community.
1. Minutes
The minutes from the last meeting were approved, with one change via email from Athina to revise the language in the response to the third action item. Her amended text was, “This was done. Athina said that she proposed not to imitate the legal system of appeals as it was highly complex and not fit for the purposes of a CoC. The TF should instead just note that appeals could be filed for any aspect of a case and would then be subject to review by different members of the CoC Team. Based on this logic, she and Antony amended the language in the draft”.
2. Agenda
There were no changes to the agenda.
3. Actions
- (Ongoing) TF to think about how the CoC Team and the WG Chairs would work together to manage discussions on mailing lists. Including tools, e.g. Mattermost channel
This action remained ongoing.
- (Ongoing) TF to think about the appropriate level of process to allow further improvements to the CoC.
This action remained ongoing.
-The RIPE NCC to revise the document’s wording and to make a corresponding diagram.
This action remained ongoing.
-The RIPE NCC to plan an awareness campaign for the RIPE community that explains the purpose of the CoC and how to make use of it.
This action remained ongoing.
-The TF and the RIPE Chair Team to determine whether the CoC Team or the RIPE Chair would be responsible for deciding on serious consequences for severe CoC breaches.
This action remained ongoing.
4. Feedback on Updated Draft Document
Antony shared the updated document.
Leo noted that when publishing the draft for comments, the TF should acknowledge they had used Mozilla and Python as inspirations for the draft.
Antony agreed to add this. He then explained the changes in the introduction and the section on the relationship between the CoC Team and the RIPE Chair, which included an updated description about the final authority of the CoC Team.
Leo noted that there had been a discussion on the list about when CoC decisions would need to be reviewed by a higher authority. The decision was that enforcing serious consequences required the CoC Team to give notice to the RIPE Chair and the RIPE NCC.
Antony noted that the RIPE NCC member on the CoC Team could also speak to a RIPE NCC manager in such a case.
Brian said the key point was to have communication between the different parties. The community could give feedback on specific mechanisms for this.
Leo agreed that they should wait to hear community feedback on this section.
The TF then discussed the section on how the CoC Team would handle reports.
Brian noted that while the goal was for a report to be received by the on-duty Team member, it was also possible that another Team member might see it.
Leo agreed that a report might be received by any Team member who was available.
The TF also discussed what word to use for the outcome of the CoC Team’s investigation and settled on the word “decision”.
In the section on outcomes of reports, Antony said he would need to get Athina’s input on how to record the CoC Team’s decisions.
Leo said the system for recording these decisions was up to the RIPE NCC, although the TF could also consider the community’s feedback about record-keeping.
The TF discussed the wording here and considered how public these records would need to be to ensure the safety of community members from repeat offenders while still protecting privacy.
Brian said it was important to track repeated offences in some way and that they could look to other communities like Python and Mozilla for how they handled this.
The group then discussed the wording in the sections on potential consequences and loss of office.
Leo noted that while the TF members present at the meeting were happy with the document, they also needed the input of the rest of the group. The TF should therefore publish the document to the list for one week, with a note that they were seeking community input about the decision-making authority of the CoC Team and the extent of record-keeping required. The TF would also note that this was intended as a basic process document, and that in practice the CoC Team would rely on their own judgments as well while investigating reports.
The TF discussed whether to add a consequence for removing someone from the venue of a meeting. They decided this was not feasible, as different venues would have different policies for removing guests.
5. Training for CoC Team
Antony shared the law firm he had looked into for training. The firm specialised in developing CoC team training programmes, and it was available for both in-person and virtual training sessions. Members of the firm could also attend RIPE Meetings to offer training on an ongoing basis. If needed, the firm was also available to do a third-party assessment for CoC breaches.
Brian said he would look into the firm and shared another consulting group as an option for conducting the training.
Leo asked for more information about the process so he could share the details at RIPE 84. This would make volunteers more likely to sign up for the CoC Team since they would know what the training process entailed.
Antony said the firm’s process varied, but generally the training ranged from a half a day to two days. The training would give CoC Team members practise responding to various kinds of incidents and feedback for improving their responses.
Leo said this time frame sounded reasonable.
Brian agreed but encouraged the TF to continue considering other training options.
6. CoC ‘Awareness’ for RIPE Meeting
Leo praised the CoC awareness plan Antony had prepared. He suggested mentioning the CoC in the meeting welcome and at the start of every session. The TF could also look into expanding the awareness campaign after RIPE 84.
The TF discussed which actions for raising awareness could be ready for the RIPE Meeting. One viable option could be making an informative video. Infographics could also be useful, but it was best to focus on content they were confident in that would not require later revision.
Brian suggested infographics about how to make a report and how a report was handled but said the main goal was to have the process document itself ready for community comments by RIPE 84. The TF could then focus on awareness efforts over the summer. The TF should ask the PC and the WG Chairs to mention the new CoC in their sessions.
The TF considered how to convey the CoC to the community and decided the focus should be on the CoC being a way to make everyone feel safer and more welcome. The TF also discussed how to make everyone in the community feel comfortable at the upcoming RIPE Meeting. The group would align with the RIPE Chair Team on how best to do so.
Leo thanked Antony for putting the documents together and looking into the training. He said the TF would give the rest of the group a week to look through the updated process document before they published it for the community.
7. AOB
Brian said he would not be present at the next meeting.
8. Actions
-Leo to write blog post about the published draft for the community to review and offer feedback on.
