- coc-tf - mailman.ripe.net

Thank you! (was: Fwd: Draft Call for Volunteers for RIPE Code of Conduct Team)
by Leo Vegoda 20 Apr '23

20 Apr '23

Hi, Success! Thank you all for the hard work you have put into developing our Code of Conduct, and the recruitment and operational processes needed for launch. Mirjam has drafted the message below to begin the hard work of execution. I have enjoyed working with you all. Thank you for your hard work! I think that we'll officially close the Task Force in Rotterdam. But for now, we can look forward to people volunteering to serve on the new Code of Conduct Team. Thanks again! Leo ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Mirjam Kuehne <mir(a)zu-hause.nl> Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2023 at 05:21 Subject: Draft Call for Volunteers for RIPE Code of Conduct Team To: Leo Vegoda <leo(a)vegoda.org>, Denesh Bhabuta <denesh(a)uknof.org.uk> Cc: RIPE Chair Team <chair-team(a)ripe.net> Hi Leo, Hi Denesh, Below, you can see the mail I am planning to send out. Best regards, Mirjam *** Subject: Call for volunteers for RIPE Code of Conduct Team Dear colleagues, We are looking for volunteers to serve on the RIPE Code of Conduct Team. This team will be responsible for handling any reports that someone has breached the RIPE Code of Conduct. It therefore plays an important part in keeping RIPE an open and inclusive community that encourages participation. If you would like to volunteer, please carefully read the information on this web page: https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/code-of-conduct/code-of-conduct-team-… The page links to a short form where we ask you for a motivation statement. You can nominate yourself or someone else. In order to have a team set up and trained in time for the RIPE 86 meeting in May, please send in your nominations before 24 April 2023. You can find more information on the Code of Conduct Team and its responsibilities here: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-documents/other-documents/draft… Kind Regards, Mirjam Kühne RIPE Chair

3 2

Volunteering application for the CoC (initial)Team
by Vesna Manojlovic 23 Feb '23

23 Feb '23

Dear Chairs, dear Task Force, I would like to apply for the Code of Conduct team: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-documents/other-documents/draft… I can bring experience from multiple years on the Trusted Contacts team; I have followed CoC training by Valery twice; and I have been involved in the Diversity Task Force since its start. I also have experiences on the Dispute Committee and WellBeing Team in other communities, and training in mediation following Non-Violent Communication methods. I do hope that the fact I am employed by RIPE NCC will not be seen as "conflict of interest" - I think I can differentiate between being a RIPE community member and RIPE NCC employee. I also understand that the "proper" CoC team will be selected by the community - but the initial team might need your approval & appointment. That's why I'd like to help by volunteering. Alternatively, if you think that my skills can be better used in some other function, I am placing myself at your disposal. Regards, Vesna -- Senior Community Builder, RIPE NCC https://labs.ripe.net/author/becha/

2 1

Update on CoC TF status
by Leo Vegoda 10 Feb '23

10 Feb '23

Hi, This is a brief update for the TF (and the public archive) on the current status. Denesh and I met with Antony and Kjerstin yesterday. We implemented the changes to the draft and they will get the updated process document marked up. We are only making updates to the process document as there was no feedback on the recruitment document. When the updated text is ready as a web page we will announce it with a summary of the changes we have made. We'll also note that the RIPE NCC is updated contract terms to indemnify CoC Team members. We'll be looking out for feedback about substantive issues that need to be corrected. If those arise then we'll obviously need to consider what to do. Kind regards, Leo

2 1

Updated CoC Process Document
by Kjerstin Burdiek 03 Feb '23

03 Feb '23

Dear TF members, Here’s the updated CoC process document. Please add any comments you have about final changes that are needed before publication: https://docs.google.com/document/d/158OtFlKlt5Zv1kqZCzr8LFibkNs2mDYKRa0RNTF… <https://docs.google.com/document/d/158OtFlKlt5Zv1kqZCzr8LFibkNs2mDYKRa0RNTF…> Cheers, Kjerstin

4 8

Updated Process Document
by Antony Gollan 20 Dec '22

20 Dec '22

Dear TF members, Here's the latest version of the process document that we ran through on our last call: https://docs.google.com/document/d/158OtFlKlt5Zv1kqZCzr8LFibkNs2mDYKRa0RNTF… Cheers Ant

1 0

Draft Minutes – CoC TF Thirty-Seventh Call
by Kjerstin Burdiek 15 Dec '22

15 Dec '22

Dear TF members, Here are the minutes from our last call. Cheers Kjerstin *** 7 December 15:00 (UTC+2) Attendees: Antony Gollan, Brian Nisbet, Leo Vegoda, Salam Yamout Scribe: Kjerstin Burdiek Summary: The TF reviewed the updated draft process document. They discussed changes in the sections about how the CoC Team would handle spurious reports and about the RIPE Chair’s role in appeals. They also considered the wording in the section about data protection and what could be done to best indemnify team members against possible legal action. The group decided that they could include some language to this effect in the recruitment process document and would consult with the RIPE NCC’s Legal team to see if this should be in the main process document too. There was an action on Antony to revise the document and share it with the other TF members for discussion, after which the TF would publish the revised document in late January. 1. Minutes The minutes from the last meeting were approved. 2. Agenda The item on common law was postponed until next meeting, as Athina was not present. 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 but would be picked up by the CoC Team. -Athina to evaluate the risk of discovery in common-law jurisdictions and what language is needed in communications templates. This action was postponed until Athina could be present. -RIPE NCC to look into including a clause indemnifying CoC Team members for communications in apps including Mattermost and Zoom. This action was postponed until Athina could be present. -Leo to follow up with the RIPE Chair Team about whether the RIPE Chair should be able to overturn a decision in an appeal. This action was completed. Leo had shared possible approaches to the appeals process with the RIPE Chair Team, and they had preferred the option to act as appropriate in an appeal. The Chair Team had suggested the IETF ombudsperson procedure as a reference for this process. 4. Document Updates Antony shared the RIPE NCC’s updates to the document. This included clarifying that the RIPE Chair had oversight over the CoC Team and could remove team members for not properly performing their roles. Leo suggested different wording in the section about anonymous reports to clarify that they were referring to reports from an unnamed source. Antony shared an update in the section stating that spurious reports would be dismissed, which was based on a change mentioned in the TF’s RIPE Labs blog post. Brian suggested some new language to make it clearer how the CoC Team would respond to these reports. Leo suggested not outlining specific examples of how the team would respond and instead stating the team would act according to their best judgment. Brian said having one example would be helpful for readers. The TF agreed to include one short example. Antony asked whether the RIPE Chair would only be consulted if an appeal was escalated to its final stage or if the RIPE Chair would always be involved in an appeal. Leo said the wording in the text regarding this issue was fine. He suggested changing the text that said the RIPE Chair could only overturn an appeal if the process was improperly followed. Instead, the Chair should have the freedom to make any decision no matter how the process was followed. Antony suggested new wording. Leo said this sounded fine but should be checked with the RIPE Chair Team. Antony reviewed the changes to the section on data protection that had been made by the RIPE NCC’s Legal team. Leo questioned whether the section on data retention implied former CoC Team members could be involved in legal disputes up to five years later and so would need to access report data again. Brian said they would not have access to the data but would simply be mentioned in the court case. Antony asked whether this data would be stored in the CoC Team archives or with a legal team. Leo said this section might discourage people from joining the team given that they might be involved well beyond their term if there was a court case. Brian said it was beyond the ability of the TF to fully protect against this, as it was a legal matter. They simply needed to indemnify team members as much as possible and ensure compliant data protection. Leo agreed indemnity was the main piece missing here. They needed to explain their indemnity process in the document. Brian said indemnity did not belong in this document. Antony suggested putting this in the CoC Team recruitment document or in the website documentation. Leo said the recruitment process document would be an acceptable place for this. He also suggested changing the wording in this section. Salam agreed with Brian that it was beyond the TF’s control to ensure CoC Team members would never be involved in later legal cases, just as former employees could be called in to testify in cases about their former employers. 5. AOB Leo asked Antony to share an updated draft of the document before the next meeting so they could then discuss any final changes needed. They would also need input from Athina about risk to determine whether to update the legal sections. The TF should publish the revised draft in late January, and then they could work on recruiting CoC Team members at the next RIPE Meeting. Antony shared that he would have limited availability for the next two months. Leo suggested simply discussing things asynchronously in that case, rather than meeting. Antony said this would work for him and should be fine for Athina as well. Leo said he would send a message to the list that there would be no upcoming meeting unless absolutely necessary. 6. Actions -Antony to check with the RIPE Chair Team about the RIPE Chair’s role in appeals. -Athina to evaluate the risk of discovery in common-law jurisdictions and what language is needed in communications templates. -RIPE NCC to look into including a clause indemnifying CoC Team members for communications in apps including Mattermost and Zoom. -RIPE NCC to share an updated draft document with any necessary changes.

1 0

No meeting planned for Wednesday, 21 December
by Leo Vegoda 07 Dec '22

07 Dec '22

Hi, The plan is to review some final changes to documents ahead of 21 December. We won't meet unless there is a significant change to discuss. The RIPE NCC is preparing some text to share. The documents can then be published to the community in the second half of January. Kind regards, Leo

1 0

Draft agenda for Wednesday, 7 December
by Leo Vegoda 06 Dec '22

06 Dec '22

Hi, Here is a draft agenda for our meeting tomorrow. Kind regards, Leo Title Who What Time Outcome Minutes TF Review the draft minutes of the last meeting. Identify any changes. Finalise. 5 mins Minutes Agenda TF Review agenda and adjust as needed. 5 mins Agenda Actions All Review status of actions from the previous meeting: - (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 - Athina to evaluate the risk of discovery in common-law jurisdictions and what language is needed in communications templates. - RIPE NCC to look into including a clause indemnifying CoC Team members for communications in apps including Mattermost and Zoom. - Leo to follow up with the RIPE Chair Team about whether the RIPE Chair should be able to overturn a decision in an appeal. 5 mins Status Common Law Athina/All Athina to report on the scale of risk from the discovery process in common law jurisdictions 10 mins Awareness Doc updates All Decide on final document updates 20 mins Decision AOB ? ? ? ? Actions NCC Review actions agreed during the meeting 5 mins Action list

1 0

Draft Minutes – CoC TF Thirty-Sixth Call
by Kjerstin Burdiek 06 Dec '22

06 Dec '22

Dear TF members, Here are the minutes from our last call. Cheers Kjerstin *** 23 November 15:00 (UTC+2) Attendees: Denesh Bhabuta, Athina Fragkouli, Leo Vegoda, Salam Yamout Scribe: Kjerstin Burdiek Summary: The CoC TF discussed various updates to the document, especially in the sections on risk. Athina shared what the RIPE NCC’s Legal team had added to the document to address potential risk areas for CoC Team members. They had made changes to the section on data retention, updating the time periods, purposes and maximum time limit for data retention. This was to ensure compliance with laws about personal data retention in most jurisdictions, including those outside of the Netherlands. Athina also shared the Legal team’s changes to the section granting the shadow team access to data in reports, which she said was covered under the purpose of training to better evaluate future reports. The group also considered whether a clause might be needed to indemnify CoC Team members against possible legal damages. Athina said this could be added to the terms and conditions of meeting registration, and she would look into whether it would be possible to include this in other communications channels. Finally, the group reviewed other updates to the document made by the RIPE NCC. One update still needed to be considered regarding whether the RIPE Chair could overturn a CoC Team decision during an appeal. Leo would speak to the RIPE Chair Team about this and report back next time. 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 WG Chairs would work together to manage discussions on mailing lists. Including tools, e.g. Mattermost channel This action remained ongoing but would be picked up by the CoC Team. -Athina to investigate the scale of risk that data might be needed in a court. This action was completed. The RIPE NCC’s Legal team had reviewed this risk and updated the section on data retention in the process document. Athina shared the changes in the draft with the group. These changes included new periods for data retention to account for the possibility of litigation. The section had also been revised to include all the purposes for retaining personal data. The text outlining the data retention process for different types of data had been removed and replaced by a more general provision explaining that data would be retained for as long as needed to fulfil the purpose of assessment. This retention could be for up to five years, except in cases where there were legal requirements to retain data for longer. The limit was set at five years as this time period met the statute of limitations in most jurisdictions. Denesh asked whether this specifically addressed GDPR requirements. Athina said it did not. The section was intended to address potential litigation in other jurisdictions. Denesh asked if this meant jurisdictions outside of the Netherlands. Athina said yes, as RIPE events could take place in other countries, which could lead to litigation in these places. -Athina to review language over data retention, training and the broader team. This action was completed. Athina said that as the shadow team was still part of the CoC Team and just looking at reports for training purposes, it was acceptable under the purposes of data retention for them to view the reports. They were also covered to use reports as a reference for how to make future assessments. The RIPE NCC Legal team had updated the text to reflect this. -Athina to evaluate the risk of discovery in common-law jurisdictions and what language is needed in communications templates. This action remained ongoing. -RIPE NCC to draft a section about the importance of the RIPE Chair’s judgment when selecting a CoC Team and the importance of the quality of the CoC Team’s training. This action was completed. -RIPE NCC to review appeals text and clarify that the RIPE Chair is the final stage of appeal. This action was completed. -Athina to update the sections on data protection and legal protection for the CoC Team. This action was addressed in the agenda item on risk. 4. Risk Athina noted that what remained to be addressed was the risk of a discovery process in common-law jurisdictions. This could affect what templates the CoC Team would need to use in its communications, although the process document was not likely to be affected. Leo asked if the TF had yet covered how the CoC Team would be indemnified against potential legal action. Athina said this could be accomplished through adding a disclaimer in the terms and conditions for meeting attendees. This did not necessarily need to be in the process document. Leo asked if it would be wise to include some reference to it in the document. Athina said the group could do so, but putting it in the process document did not fully bind meeting attendees to agree to this clause. Only including it in terms and conditions that attendees had to explicitly agree to could provide legal indemnity. Leo asked if they could include a similar clause for community members when they communicated through other means, such as Zoom or Mattermost. Athina said this would be difficult. These were completely different fora that did not even require agreement with the CoC. Leo said the CoC should cover all forms of participation in the RIPE community. He asked the Legal team to look into which fora could have terms and conditions for community members to agree to when communicating. This would further reduce the legal risk for the CoC Team members. Salam asked if the CoC Team members would also be remunerated. Athina said they would not. Leo said the CoC consultant had advised that team members should receive some form of support, such as for travel to meetings and meeting registration, just like WG Chairs did. 5. Document Updates Kjerstin shared the updates the RIPE NCC had made to the process document, including a new section on the importance of the RIPE Chair’s judgement in selecting team members and the significance of the training they received. Another change had been made to reflect that anonymous reports would not be evaluated to the same extent as reports with names. The section about appeals had also been updated to state more clearly that the RIPE Chair was the final reviewer in the appeals process. Leo suggested some language clarifying that the RIPE Chair could make a different decision than the CoC Team when reviewing an appealed case if the Chair found that the assessment process had not been properly followed. Salam said it was better to leave this ambiguous as the RIPE Chair should not overrule decisions, just confirm that the process had been followed. If it had not, the Chair should turn the case back to the CoC Team, possibly with different team members, to re-do the assessment. Leo said it would be too much of a burden on all parties involved to ask the CoC Team to go through the whole process again. It would also take too long to train new team members to review a case. Salam said this made sense, but they still should not state in the text that the RIPE Chair could overrule decisions. Leo said he would follow up with the RIPE Chair Team for their thoughts on this. 6. AOB There was no other business. 7. Actions -Athina to evaluate the risk of discovery in common-law jurisdictions and what language is needed in communications templates. -RIPE NCC to look into including a clause indemnifying CoC Team members for communications in apps including Mattermost and Zoom. -Leo to follow up with the RIPE Chair Team about whether the RIPE Chair should be able to overturn a decision in an appeal.

1 0

Call Invites
by Brian Nisbet 06 Dec '22

06 Dec '22

Ant, Thank you for setting up the calls into next year. However I appear to have both a recurring call and a bunch of individual invites. I haven't delved too deeply, but is there a difference between the two? Thank you! 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