Dear TF members,
Here are the minutes from our last call.
Cheers
Kjerstin
***
28 April 16:30 (UTC+2)
Attendees: Denesh Bhabuta, Athina Fragkouli, Antony Gollan, Leo Vegoda, Salam Yamout
Scribe: Kjerstin Burdiek
Summary: The TF discussed how to support WG chairs during the hybrid RIPE Meeting and considered creating a Mattermost channel for chairs to discuss incidents that occurred and how they handled them. The TF noted that this would be separate from the formal CoC reporting process. Regarding the CoC process document, the TF decided to extend the call for comments on the draft and at the same time to announce the upcoming BoF to the community. The session was primarily intended to recruit CoC Team members, and so at the BoF the TF would explain the Team’s training and recruitment processes. The TF discussed what the details of the recruitment process would be. While it was based on the arbiter recruitment process, there were significant differences, and the TF came up with several possible solutions to present to the community about how CoC Team applicants would be selected. The TF also considered whether some form of background checks should be conducted for applicants. The group concluded that full checks would be impractical but that applicants should sign a statement affirming they had no criminal history. Finally, the TF also considered whether background checks were necessary for RIPE community members and decided it was not feasible to exclude people from participating in the community due to their backgrounds.
1. Minutes
The minutes from the last meeting 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
Leo suggested that the RIPE NCC create a Mattermost channel for WG chairs to discuss any possible issues arising at RIPE 84.
Antony asked if the trusted contacts or the CoC TF members should also be in this channel.
Leo said the trusted contacts should be, but the TF members should not as the TF was not intended to handle specific misconduct incidents.
Antony suggested Athina or another colleague from the Legal department could be in the channel.
Leo said this would be helpful.
Salam asked if this had been decided on earlier. The CoC process should be kept separate from the WG chairs fulfilling their roles. The CoC Team could just reach out to chairs as needed during investigations.
Leo said he was concerned as this was a hybrid meeting, which would require moderating an online chat in addition to an onsite session. A Mattermost chat room could then be a useful channel for sharing advice about how to handle misconduct during the meeting.
Athina suggested clarifying to chairs that the chat was just for sharing experiences, not for reporting incidents to the CoC Team.
Leo said they did need to make this clear, but it was still important to somehow support the WG chairs given their added responsibilities at this meeting. The chat would help all chairs learn how to handle these situations appropriately.
Salam said these responsibilities were not actually additional, as they still fell under traditional moderating duties. The chairs would simply need to learn the new CoC process for handling incidents.
Leo said that it would be good for chairs and the CoC Team if the TF helped chairs learn how to handle their roles in this new context.
- (Ongoing) TF to think about the appropriate level of process to allow further improvements to the CoC.
This action remained ongoing.
-RIPE NCC to review the process document and the blog post.
Leo marked this action as complete.
-Leo to submit BoF proposal for RIPE 84.
Leo marked this action as complete. The BoF would be on Tuesday evening during the RIPE Meeting.
4. Draft Document
Leo noted that there were no comments on the document yet. The TF might need to extend the deadline by at least a week.
Antony said the TF could remind people to share feedback when it announced the upcoming BoF session, and the TF could extend the deadline for comments as well. The RIPE NCC could also put out more messages on social media reminding people to share their comments, including simple approval or disapproval.
Leo agreed that any comments, no matter how brief, would be useful. Once one comment was made, it might inspire others.
5. BoF
Leo noted that the purpose of the BoF was to recruit people to the CoC Team. At the BoF, the TF needed to talk about the CoC Team training and recruitment processes. The TF should also prepare for the questions the audience might have about these. He asked the TF what the best format for these discussions would be. As the recruitment process would probably produce the most questions, it should be discussed after the training process.
Antony suggested gauging the audience’s mood at the start of the BoF in case they wanted to discuss the process document.
Leo said the TF could include a slide summarising the CoC process, like in the blog post. Then the TF could draw from these summary points when discussing the training. He asked Antony to present the training process that he had been researching.
Antony confirmed he would be prepared to do so and that he would work on selecting a training agency in the coming weeks.
Leo added that Athina or another member of the Legal team should be prepared to lead the discussion on the recruitment process. He asked how the TF could identify people who were unsuitable for the CoC Team.
Athina said it made sense to model the CoC process on a pre-existing process, such as the one for arbiter recruitment. However, the arbiter selection was formalised in a corporate process. Applications were approved by the Executive Board, and the selection was made at the General Meeting. She asked who would approve the CoC Team members.
Salam suggested the CoC TF could approve the Team members, and the RIPE NCC Executive Board could confirm this approval. On the other hand, the selection could take place through an informal vote at the RIPE Meeting.
Antony suggested there could be a call in the Plenary for applicants, and the RIPE Chair Team could approve CoC Team members.
Athina suggested looking to the recruitment process for the Executive Board Election CoC Team. The TF needed to have several possible solutions to present to the community.
Leo asked whether it was necessary for the RIPE NCC to carry out background checks on possible CoC Team members.
Athina said the RIPE NCC does background checks on its own staff and also has EB candidates sign a document confirming they have no criminal convictions. However, it did not do full background checks on these candidates or on members of the EB Election CoC Team. The RIPE NCC could look into performing background checks if they were required, or it could just ask candidates for the CoC Team to sign a statement, like it did for the EB candidates.
Salam said a full background check would be excessive, as this was not done for the arbiters either. A CoC Team member should ideally be nominated by someone else, which would be a positive reference for their character.
Denesh agreed it would be difficult for the RIPE NCC to carry out background checks. He suggested including a statement on the application for the CoC Team affirming that applicants had no criminal background. Then, if an issue arose, the RIPE NCC had proof the candidate had lied about their background.
Leo said having candidates sign a statement made sense as a lightweight approach.
Antony expressed concern that this might make it more difficult to recruit CoC Team members as it was an added obstacle to apply. Perhaps the TF could require an applicant to get an endorsement rather than needing a nomination.
Athina suggested adding a provision in the process document that stated a CoC Team member could be dismissed if it was found that they had a criminal history.
Leo said the TF should share that they took the arbitration process as a model but planned to make changes as needed, and they could ask the community at the BoF for feedback on these changes. To prepare for the BoF, the TF needed a summary of the CoC process, a summary of the CoC Team training, and a presentation about the recruitment processes for arbiters and for the EB Election CoC Team. He offered to do the first part and suggested that Antony explain the training and Athina explain the recruitment. They could combine their presentation slides a week before the RIPE Meeting. He asked if the TF should prepare for any other possible questions.
Antony said the question of representation might come up, such as whether there should be a certain number of representatives from different regions on the CoC Team.
Leo said the Team’s composition would most likely depend on who volunteers, but it would be good for the RIPE NCC to prepare a way to reach out for volunteers in various regions.
6. AOB
Leo said Mirjam had informed him about a situation at a conference called CppCon, where it was discovered that an organiser of the event had undisclosed criminal history. Mirjam asked what the CoC Team would do if a similar situation arose at a RIPE event. Leo said that the Team was reactive, not proactive, and would respond as needed if such a situation came up. However, he questioned whether there were limits as to who could participate in the RIPE community and how those limits could be legally enforced.
Athina said there were no such limits and that the terms and conditions for RIPE events were also reactive. They could only respond to present events, not past convictions. Not even the police could remove someone from an event for having a criminal history. There would need to be a whole new discussion if the RIPE community wanted to exclude people with criminal pasts. If the TF wanted to do this, it would be challenging to confirm this information and enforce this restriction. It was very different from doing so for staff, which was much easier for the RIPE NCC to confirm.
Leo said in that case it was too impractical to exclude people with criminal histories from participating in the RIPE community. If a situation arose, it would need to be handled by the RIPE NCC and the RIPE Chair Team, not the CoC TF.
Athina said this sounded reasonable.
Leo said he would respond to Mirjam with the TF’s conclusion on this.
7. Actions
-Kjerstin to draft a message for Leo to send to the list about the BoF and the call for comments on the CoC process document.
-Leo, Antony and Athina to draft slides for the BoF about the CoC process and the CoC Team training and recruitment processes.
-Leo to respond to Mirjam about the question of RIPE community background checks.
