April 2022 - coc-tf - mailman.ripe.net

Draft Minutes – CoC TF Twenty-Fourth Call
by Kjerstin Burdiek 26 Apr '22

26 Apr '22

Dear TF members, Here are the minutes from our last call. Cheers Kjerstin *** 7 April 16:30 (UTC+2) Attendees: Denesh Bhabuta, Antony Gollan, Brian Nisbet, Leo Vegoda Scribe: Kjerstin Burdiek Summary: The TF discussed the CoC Team’s record retention. The process document made a distinction between personal data retention, which would be limited to 18 months for minor breaches and 36 months for serious breaches, and retention of anonymised data for detecting behaviour patterns. The TF also discussed the appeals process and decided personal data for reporters should only be retained until the conclusion of an appeal. Following this, Leo shared the blog post he had drafted for the community. The TF reviewed it and decided to include a request for community feedback about the data retention periods. Finally, Leo shared the BoF proposal he had drafted for RIPE 84. The TF considered whether to add time for discussion of the process document at the BoF. The group decided to focus on using the session to help with CoC Team recruitment but resolved to review whether some discussion would be needed based on community feedback on the published document. Leo planned to submit the BoF proposal later in the day, while the RIPE NCC would review the blog post and the process document, to be published early in the next week. 1. Minutes The minutes from the previous two meetings were approved with no changes. 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 item remained ongoing. - (Ongoing) TF to think about the appropriate level of process to allow further improvements to the CoC. This item remained ongoing. -Athina to review the draft in regard to record-keeping. This was done. -Leo to draft a proposal for a BoF at RIPE 84. This was done. 4. Record Retention Antony pointed out that there was a difference between retaining personal data during a CoC investigation, which would only be maintained as long as necessary to enforce the consequence, versus retaining an anonymised record of misconduct. These anonymised records would help the CoC Team make decisions about consequences in future cases and would allow for identifying trends. To satisfy GDPR requirements, the process document included an explanation for why this data was being held and for how long. Data would be held for both the reporter and the subject of the report for the same length of time. For minor breaches, such data would be kept for 18 months, for major breaches, 36 months. For longer consequences, such as bans, data would be held for as long as was necessary to carry out this consequence. Leo asked if the TF should explain the rationale for these time periods in their blog post. Antony said they could explain these periods were based around RIPE Meetings. Leo said it was important to mention this rationale. Antony noted that no personal data for reporters or witnesses would be kept for longer than 36 months. He suggested that the CoC Team retain data long enough that it could inform a reporter about any appeal overturning the decision of their original investigation. Brian said the Team should not be required to inform the reporter of this, only as appropriate. Leo said the 18-month appeal period could be distressing for reporters and that no appeal should last that long. The TF should just say the Team would retain personal data until the conclusion of an appeal, without stating a specific time period. Antony updated this in the document. He asked for feedback on the section about retention of personal data. Brian said it would be fine to retain personal data that was fully anonymised. Leo asked if the TF was ready to share the document with the community. Antony said he would review the wording again first. Brian said the wording just needed to be consistent. Leo asked the RIPE NCC to work with its Legal team to ensure the document was consistent. Then the document would be ready to publish. Antony said the RIPE NCC would check the document again. Leo said it would be best to publish on the following Monday or Tuesday. 5. Blog Post The TF discussed the wording in the summary. Leo asked the RIPE NCC to make changes in this section as needed. Antony asked if the questions for the community captured what the TF wanted to ask. Leo suggested asking for community feedback about the time periods for data retention and the retention of anonymised data to detect behaviour patterns. Antony asked what the TF should do if the community opposed this data retention. Leo said that would indicate there was no consensus, which was why it was important to ask. But the TF should be very clear in explaining the purpose of this data retention to the community. Brian noted that retaining data for some time made sense as many people in the community would not attend every RIPE Meeting. He suggested directly asking the community if the time periods were sufficient. Leo said the legalistic part of the text would likely generate the most feedback, which would help the TF know which parts needed to be clarified for the community. Going forward, he would improve the wording of the questions in the blog post and then send an updated version to the list for the RIPE NCC to review. Antony offered to publish the process document after reviewing it. Leo said this would be good. 6. BoF Leo shared the content of the BoF proposal, which included the CoC Team recruitment and training process, with presentations from Antony and Athina. Brian had noted the TF should more clearly state that people interested in joining the CoC Team should attend this BoF. Leo asked if the TF members wanted to mention anything else in the proposal. Brian asked whether the TF should discuss the process document at the BoF. Denesh said discussion needed to be brief to fit into the session. Antony said the community would want time to discuss the document if they had criticism to share. Denesh said the TF should just be clear about the BoF’s content in the agenda and follow it closely. Leo said that since people not at the BoF would miss out on the discussion, the TF should focus on this as a CoC Team recruitment session. The discussion about the CoC process document should involve the whole community. Antony said the TF could have two possible plans for the BoF and choose one based on the mood of attendees. If people wanted to share feedback, then the TF should let them. Brian said the TF should be prepared to discuss the document if needed, but they should still make sure to discuss the main topics they had wanted to bring up. Leo said this made sense. Also, after the three-week review period, the TF would know the community’s overall response to the document. A week or so before the RIPE Meeting, the TF could decide whether they would keep their planned agenda or add more time for discussion. He asked Brian if this should be in the BoF proposal. Brian said the content of the proposal did not need to be exact. Leo said he would submit the BoF proposal later in the day, with more focus on recruitment. 7. AOB There was no other business. 8. Actions -RIPE NCC to review the process document and the blog post. -Leo to submit BoF proposal for RIPE 84.

1 0

Thursday's meeting agenda
by Leo Vegoda 25 Apr '22

25 Apr '22

Hi, When we meet on Thursday I'd like to run through the plan for the CoC TF BoF at RIPE 84. The goal is to work out what we want to do to attract people to attend, and how we'll manage the agenda. Thanks, Leo

1 0

RIPE84 BoF Timing Question
by Brian Nisbet 22 Apr '22

22 Apr '22

Folks, We'll be getting an official notification soon that our BoF has been accepted. I'm just off a PC call, so very fresh news. I wouldn't normally snipe like this, but I wanted to ask if we had a preference for timing. Some considerations... - I assume we want it on Monday or Tuesday evening, there is a BoF scheduled for both those evenings already, but there are two slots. - Monday is currently the NREN/Academic session - Tuesday is currently BCOP Personally I'd like to go to the NREN session, but that's just me and I appreciate BCOP might be the bigger clash There are slots on Thursday also, but I think that's too late in the week for our purposes. This is also so Mirjam can plan a meeting of the Diversity-TF to see where we are and what we're doing with that at this point. So, what do we reckon, Monday or Tuesday, both slots are at 18:00 CEST. 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 1

Fwd: BoF accepted for RIPE 84
by Leo Vegoda 20 Apr '22

20 Apr '22

FYI ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: RIPE 84 Programme Committee <pc(a)ripe.net> Date: Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 7:16 AM Subject: BoF accepted for RIPE 84 To: <leo(a)vegoda.org> Cc: <pc(a)ripe.net> Dear Leo Vegoda, Your proposal for a BoF at RIPE 84 titled 'Code of Conduct Team Recruitment BoF' has been accepted. A RIPE Programme Committee member may contact you if further input is needed. We have not yet scheduled the day and time of your session so please watch for the schedule update. If you have particular scheduling constraints, please let us know. We will make every attempt to accommodate where possible. The RIPE NCC will be in touch regarding submitting a final version of your presentation to the presentation system prior to your time slot. When preparing your final slides, please make sure you have all rights (including copyright) to reproduce the material (e.g. images) contained in the slides. Thank you very much. We look forward to your participation at RIPE 84. Franziska Lichtblau on behalf of the Programme Committee

1 0

Cancelling this week's CoC TF meeting
by Leo Vegoda 19 Apr '22

19 Apr '22

Hi, We do not yet have feedback on the draft we published. That is probably because it came out just before the Easter break. And the RIPE NCC team will be focused on an internal event this Thursday. So, let's cancel for this week as we need to get feedback on our draft to allow us to proceed. Kind regards, Leo

2 1

No meeting tomorrow
by Leo Vegoda 13 Apr '22

13 Apr '22

Hi, You should have seen a cancellation for tomorrow's meeting pop up in your calendars. If not: 2022 and interoperability is still not perfect :-( As we published our draft this week, we don't have any significant topics to discuss until we have feedback from the RIPE community. Kind regards, Leo

2 1

Fwd: RIPE 84 - Submission Received
by Leo Vegoda 07 Apr '22

07 Apr '22

FYI ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: RIPE NCC Web Services <ws(a)ripe.net> Date: Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 11:20 AM Subject: RIPE 84 - Submission Received To: <leo(a)vegoda.org> Dear Leo Vegoda, Thank you for uploading your submission titled "Code of Conduct Team Recruitment BoF" The Programme Committee will now evaluate your submission. If you have any questions, please reply to this message. RIPE 84 Meeting team

1 0

Updated Zoom Link
by Antony Gollan 07 Apr '22

07 Apr '22

Sorry folks, Something funny with Zoom there, have made a new meeting - updated link here: https://ripe.zoom.us/j/91946472757 Cheers Ant

1 0

Updated Draft Procedural Document
by Antony Gollan 07 Apr '22

07 Apr '22

Dear TF members, Ahead of our call today, I've updated the draft procedural document with feedback from our Legal department. It's had quite some changes, but I think the end result is relatively clear and seems quite workable. I've highlighted the relevant section. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qLSVZ3wX_5Aibi1WVbtWlzirRs9RjolKzrUXrpo… Cheers Ant

1 0

Draft Minutes – CoC TF Twenty-Third Call
by Kjerstin Burdiek 06 Apr '22

06 Apr '22

Dear TF members, Here are the minutes from our last call. Cheers Kjerstin *** 31 March 16:30 (UTC+2) Attendees: Antony Gollan, Leo Vegoda Scribe: Kjerstin Burdiek Summary: The TF reviewed the draft document and made small structural and wording changes. They discussed whether the CoC Team would report on individual or community patterns of behaviour and determined that it would share statistical data about community behaviours while maintaining private records of individual behaviours to inform its decision-making in investigations. The TF considered how the CoC Team would maintain these records. It was decided to split breaches into minor and major, with a 12-month period of holding records for the former and a 24-month period for the latter. Ongoing consequences, such as permanent bans, would necessitate keeping some records indefinitely. The TF decided to consult with Athina to ensure this plan was in accordance with laws about data protection. The TF also decided that the RIPE NCC should determine the database the CoC Team would use for its records. After reviewing the draft, the TF looked at the blog post Leo had drafted to announce the process document to the community. They discussed the questions they would ask the community for feedback on the authority of the CoC Team and the extent of record-keeping required. Finally, the TF considered the next steps. They decided to share the process document with the community in about a week and to then give the community three weeks to review it. They would also plan a BoF session at RIPE 84 to update the community on the feedback received and inform them about the CoC Team recruitment and training process. 1. Minutes There were no changes to the minutes, with a hold on approval until more TF members were available to review them. 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. -Athina to review the language on appeals and propose an amendment if needed. Leo marked this action as complete. -RIPE NCC to update the working draft so it makes consistent use of simple language. Leo marked this action as complete. -Leo to write blog post about the published draft for the community to review and offer feedback on. Leo marked this action as complete. He had sent the blog post to the RIPE Labs editor in preparation to publish it. Antony said he had reviewed the blog post and made some edits that the TF could discuss later in the call. 4. Draft Process Document Antony shared the updated draft document. The TF discussed wording changes in the section on how the CoC Team related to the RIPE community and in the section on the requirement to inform the RIPE Chair Team of decisions. Antony said he had spoken to the RIPE Chair and confirmed that the CoC Team did not need to inform the Chair Team in all cases before enacting a decision, only in cases of serious breaches with heavier consequences. Leo agreed this was a better approach to avoid excessive reporting. Antony asked whether the CoC Team’s records should describe the patterns of behaviour of individuals or of the community as a whole. Leo said the document referred to individual patterns of behaviour but that it would be important to identify community patterns of behaviour as well. The TF should note in the document that records of individual patterns of behaviour would only be kept by the CoC investigation team and would not be shared with the community. Antony shared the section referring to the RIPE NCC maintaining statistics about individual patterns of behaviour. He noted that the language there might lead readers to think the RIPE NCC would examine all of its data on an individual during report investigations, when in fact only report-related information would be consulted. Leo said the TF needed to define the different ways the CoC Team would use the data it collected. Statistics on community patterns of behaviour would be shared with the community. On the other hand, records of individual patterns of behaviour would be used only by the CoC Team to help them decide on appropriate consequences for breaches. The TF then discussed some wording and structural changes in this section and in the section about the legality of recording reports. Antony said they needed to reference specific laws when explaining how long the CoC Team could maintain records. In particular, it would be necessary to establish what the purpose of these records were to follow legal guidelines. This purpose could be that the CoC Team needed records for as long as it took to enforce consequences, which could be ongoing in the case of bans from meetings and mailing lists. Leo suggested splitting breaches into categories for minor and major, with records held for 12 months for the former and 24 months for the latter. The TF should get Athina’s thoughts on this as well. Antony said the TF should add that the CoC Team could maintain longer records when consequences would exceed 24 months, as in the case of permanent bans. The TF still needed to determine what the CoC Team should do if the subject of a report requested the deletion of their personal data. Leo said this would be for the RIPE NCC, as the legal record holder, to determine. The RIPE NCC also needed to determine what database system the CoC Team would use. Antony said the RIPE NCC already had a system in place that could be used for this. 5. Blog Post Leo noted that his draft blog post summarised the process document. In addition, it placed some specific actions on the community while also inviting general feedback. The specific actions were asking the community to give their feedback about the extent of the authority of the CoC Team and the extent of the record-keeping required. There was also an implicit question about how much information would need to be disclosed. The TF discussed the best structure for the blog post and decided to consult with Athina on this, particularly in regard to the actions placed on the community. 6. Review Period Leo suggested giving the community a three-week review period for the document ahead of RIPE 84. Antony asked if clear consensus would be required at the end of this period. Leo said the TF would need to decide after the review period whether there was overall support for the process document or whether they would need to revise it. There would not be time before RIPE 84 to present a revised version, so they could just give an update at RIPE 84. The TF discussed how to present this update at RIPE 84, whether asking Mirjam to share some slides at the meeting or holding a BoF session. Antony said they should decide based on community feedback. If there was a lot of discussion about the document, it would merit a BoF session. Leo said the hybrid nature of the RIPE Meeting would make adding an ad hoc BoF session difficult. Antony agreed but noted there was still space on the RIPE 84 agenda. Leo said he wanted to tell the community at RIPE 84 about the CoC Team’s recruitment process, which would be based on the arbiters’ recruitment process, and about the CoC Team training procedure. Antony said that, in that case, a BoF session would make sense. The TF could discuss those items as well as add more content as needed. Leo said he would draft a proposal for a BoF to send to Antony and Athina. The TF discussed how to structure the BoF session. They decided that Athina could give a talk about the recruitment process and Antony could talk about the training. Then they would describe the CoC Team’s composition and duties and have a community discussion afterward. Antony would prepare the presentation materials. 7. Next Steps Antony noted that the TF should publish the draft process document as soon as possible, even if the legal review was still in progress. Leo agreed that the TF should publish the process document by the end of the following week so the community would have three weeks to review it. The TF could also tell the community about the planned BoF session. 8. AOB Antony said he would look into the consulting group Brian had mentioned last week for CoC Team training. Leo said this would be good, as that group looked more community-focused and might be a better fit than the law firm Antony had originally found. 9. Actions -Athina to review the draft in regard to record-keeping. -Leo to draft a proposal for a BoF at RIPE 84.

1 0