Dear TF members,
Apologies for the delay. Here are the minutes from our last call.
Cheers
Kjerstin
***
8 July 16:30 (UTC+2)
Attendees: Denesh Bhabuta, Athina Fragkouli, Antony Gollan, Brian Nisbet, Leo Vegoda
Scribe: Kjerstin Burdiek
Summary: The TF discussed candidate recruitment for the first CoC Team. The group noted that age diversity would be one important aspect to have on the Team. There was an action on Leo to reach out to potential candidates to see if they were interested. Next, the TF reviewed the draft recruitment process document that Leo had prepared. They decided that while the RIPE Chair should aim to select a diverse group for the CoC Team, the Chair should still have discretion when choosing specific candidates. The group also addressed the possible impact of unrecorded intersessional meetings and concluded that the CoC Team would have to be prepared for enforcing the CoC based on eyewitness accounts in the absence of recorded evidence. Next, the TF went over the updated draft process document. They discussed what the appropriate time periods would be for the CoC Team’s retention of personal data. The group updated the document to reflect that witness data would only be held until the time limit for an appeal had passed. There was an action on Athina to also look into if the RIPE NCC should retain data for longer in the event an investigation went to court. Finally, the group planned to have a CoC consultant review these documents and resolved to meet once this and other actions were done.
1. Minutes
The minutes from the last meeting were approved.
2. Agenda
There were no changes to the agenda.
3. Actions
- (Ongoing) TF to think about how the CoC Team and the WGc 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.
-RIPE NCC to start updates to draft process document
This was done. Antony had shared the updated draft process document with the mailing list.
-Leo to draft and share a recruitment process document
This was done. Leo had shared this document and had received comments to discuss.
-All to think about people who might be willing to serve a term on the initial Code of Conduct Team
Leo asked the group if they had anyone in mind who would be good fit.
Denesh asked whether anyone at the RIPE Meeting had expressed interest in being on the CoC Team or had made comments about it at the BoF.
The group discussed some candidates who would be good for the Team.
Denesh pointed out that there should be age diversity on the CoC Team as well to bring in new perspectives.
Brian agreed but said the TF was only bootstrapping for now.
Denesh brought up his experience with UKNOF as an example of how getting younger candidates was necessary to carry on the organisation.
Antony said there should also be at least one experienced candidate who was well-known in the community.
Leo agreed that this should be part of the age diversity. He asked the TF to continue thinking about this and suggested university study programs to find younger candidates, although he noted funding would be one challenge for that group. He would reach out to possible candidates the group had discussed.
4. Recruitment Process
Leo shared the draft recruitment process document and asked the TF for their impressions of its overall structure.
Antony said it looked good so far.
Brian agreed but said it would be good to get the CoC consultant’s view on it.
Leo asked if the TF should keep the section stating the RIPE Chair must not share their rationale behind selecting or rejecting a CoC Team candidate.
Antony said they should make it clear that this was to avoid reputational damage.
Athina said the section should instead say that the Chair had discretion in their choices, though they would do their best to follow the diversity requirements. A candidate might question being rejected despite meeting all apparent criteria or why a different, seemingly less qualified candidate was chosen, so it was important to be clear the Chair had their own rationale behind their choices.
Brian said he did not feel the Chair should have to give a reason and asked Athina if she felt they should.
Athina said she did not. Rather, the document should say that the Chair would simply do their best to create a diversity balance on the Team but still had discretion.
The group decided to include this in the document.
Leo asked whether intersessional, invite-only discussions in the community should not be recorded, per the Chatham House Rule.
Antony said this was essentially the same as at community social events. If not present, CoC Team members would have to rely on accounts from people who attended, without recorded evidence.
Brian said that the Chatham House Rule did not interfere with enforcing the CoC, as people could still report breaches even if they were not recorded.
The TF discussed some wording changes to this section.
Leo asked the TF whether they wanted the CoC consultant to look at this document now or after another revision.
Antony said he would like to revise the document first. He would then send this with the draft process document to the consultant.
5. Updates to Draft Process
Antony shared the updated draft process document, which had been reviewed by the RIPE NCC’s Legal department.
Brian questioned whether there should be personal data retained for report witnesses.
Antony said this information could be necessary for legal cases or appeals.
Athina agreed and suggested some wording changes.
The TF discussed what the time periods should be for retaining witness data.
Brian said this should only be kept as long as needed for an appeal, if one was made.
Leo said there was a distinction between retaining personal data for appeals and for later statistical reporting. He asked whether the CoC process document could be overridden in court on personal data disclosure.
Athina said it made sense to keep data for appeals within a time limit, after which personal data would be deleted. Court cases would be different as plaintiffs would have to give out their own personal data. The CoC Team had no obligation to and furthermore could not give out data after it had already been deleted per its own process.
Antony asked whether it would be a good idea for the RIPE NCC to store data for its own sake in a court case.
Athina said this depended on whether the RIPE NCC would be liable for this, as it would be best not to retain data for long. She would look into it.
Antony asked whether there should be an expiry date for appeals.
The TF discussed the best time limit for an appeal and settled on a month.
Antony asked whether the overall data retention periods should be changed.
Brian said there should be no data retention for witnesses past the time limit for an appeal.
Antony said this would depend on what Athina found about the legal requirements.
Athina noted there was a difference between a CoC appeal and a court case.
Brian agreed and said that in a court case, people would gather their own witnesses.
The TF discussed changes in the document to reflect this.
6. AOB
Antony asked if anyone was interested in joining the CoC training session he was organising. Leo and Brian said they might be, subject to availability.
The TF then discussed when they should have their next meeting.
7. Actions
-Leo to reach out to candidates to see if they would be interested in joining the first CoC Team.
-RIPE NCC to revise the draft process and recruitment process documents and share them with the CoC consultant for review.
-Athina to investigate data retention and potential court proceedings against the RIPE NCC and appeals.
-RIPE NCC to identify the first date on which the CoC TF should meet again after the completion of other actions and to organise this meeting.
