- 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

Draft agenda for Wednesday, 23 November
by Leo Vegoda 22 Nov '22

22 Nov '22

Hi, Here is a draft agenda for our meeting on Wednesday, 23 November. I’ll be attending but might be a bit quiet as I’ll be in a public place. I’ll make sure someone else is available to lead us through the meeting. 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 Antony to speak with the CoC consultant and other relevant parties about a possible CoC presentation at RIPE 85 Athina to investigate the scale of risk that data might be needed in a court. Athina to review language over data retention, training and the broader team. Athina to evaluate the risk of discovery in common-law jurisdictions and what language is needed in communications templates. RIPE NCC document updates 5 mins Status Risk Athina/All Discuss Athina’s report of risk evaluations and decide next steps if any 25 mins Decision Doc updates All Review text updates developed by the RIPE NCC 10 mins AOB ? ? ? ? Actions NCC Review actions agreed during the meeting 5 mins Action list

1 1

Draft Minutes – CoC TF Thirty-Fifth Call
by Kjerstin Burdiek 22 Nov '22

22 Nov '22

Dear TF members, Here are the minutes from our last call. Cheers Kjerstin *** 9 November 15:00 (UTC+2) Attendees: Antony Gollan, Brian Nisbet, Leo Vegoda, Salam Yamout Scribe: Kjerstin Burdiek Summary: The CoC TF shared their impressions of RIPE 85 and concluded both the CoC consultant’s presentation and the drop-in sessions had gone well. There were now some volunteers for the first CoC Team. Given the small amount of community discussion at the meeting, the TF felt there may now be consensus on the process documents. The group discussed what updates should be made in the main process document before publishing the next version. They decided to make changes to the language in the sections about anonymous reports, team selection and training, appeals, data protection and legal indemnification for the CoC Team members. At the next meeting, they would review these changes and discuss Athina’s risk evaluations. 1. Minutes The minutes from the last meeting were approved. 2. Agenda The agenda item on risk was removed 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. -Antony to speak with the CoC consultant and other relevant parties about a possible CoC presentation at RIPE 85 This action was complete. -Athina to investigate the scale of risk that data might be needed in a court. This action was on hold until Athina could be present. -Athina to review language over data retention, training and the broader team. This action was on hold until Athina could be present. -Athina to evaluate the risk of discovery in common-law jurisdictions and what language is needed in communications templates. This action was on hold until Athina could be present. 4. RIPE 85 Leo said the CoC consultant’s presentation had gone well and asked the TF for their thoughts. Antony agreed but noted there had been little discussion. The next time the TF published the documents, they could point to this as evidence the community was in consensus. Brian agreed there seemed to be consensus now and more approval of the CoC documents. Antony said the drop-in sessions had gone well too, and there had been two volunteers for the CoC Team. One person had shared that she had appreciated being informed at the start of the RIPE Meeting that there was a CoC as it made her feel more comfortable when interacting with other attendees. Leo said overall the feedback was positive and it was good they had volunteers for the team. They could reach out to more possible candidates as well. Salam said Mirjam had also contributed to moving the CoC process forward. 5. Document Updates Leo asked if the TF needed to update the recruitment process document and the main process document. The former had not received any feedback. The group decided to leave the recruitment process document as it was for now. Leo asked what changes they should make to the main process document, such as in the section about how anonymous reports would be evaluated. Salam said they should not go into detail about the evaluation of specific cases. They had already discussed this subject with community members at RIPE 85. Brian agreed they should not try to quantify their evaluation methods. Leo said they could mention the CoC Team would use a more detailed procedural document. Salam said they should not have more documents. Leo said the CoC TF would not be the authors of this document. Antony said community members might then ask to see this new document. He suggested instead adding language in this section saying the Team would have more specific processes. Salam suggested putting this at the end. Brian said they should leave this as is. People could examine the processes in action and re-evaluate later if needed. Antony suggested some language in this section advising reporters about what to expect when submitting anonymously. Leo suggested adding this to the webform instead. Antony said it would be good to include this in the document to address people’s concerns. The group discussed some language for this, and Antony said he would update the document. In the section about report assessment, the group discussed adding language clarifying that there would be more in-depth investigation for reports of serious misconduct. Brian said they should not list specific steps in the process so the CoC Team could have some flexibility. For example, the team may not contact the subject of a report for their story in the event of very public behaviour with many witnesses. Antony suggested broad language about the correspondence between the level of investigation and type of report. Leo said people might deliberately commit a series of small acts of misconduct to avoid serious investigation. Salam said any violations were serious. The CoC Team should have the option to use any of the procedural tools to investigate as needed, so the TF should not outline a process. Antony said different types of events would require different levels of investigation. Brian said the TF had already discussed this and the current text covered it. Leo suggested some text saying the community needed to select candidates for the team that they could trust. This would be easier than creating a perfect process. Antony agreed, as people wanted some oversight over the team. The group discussed specific language for this. In the section about making decisions, Salam said they needed to state whether the team made a decision or a recommendation. Antony said they had concluded it was a decision, and the RIPE Chair had confirmed this. Leo agreed it must be the team’s decision so they could escalate appeals to the Chair. Antony pointed out there was a line in the text about informing the RIPE Chair, which could be confusing. Leo said indeed the RIPE NCC must be informed about what consequences to implement, and it would be logical to inform the RIPE Chair as well as the head of the community. Brian said it would be good for the Chair to ask questions about the situation as oversight, although the Chair should not be able to stop the process. Leo agreed the RIPE Chair should ensure the process had been followed properly. He asked for the TF’s thoughts about the section on appeals. Antony questioned whether a different part of the CoC Team should review the appeal. Salam said this should not be allowed. Brian noted there might not be enough people for a different group to audit decisions, but outsourcing the appeals had legal and financial consequences. It was possible the RIPE Chair could bring in more people from the community if there were not enough on the review team, but the TF should not require a third-party audit in the document. Salam suggested using outsourcing as a first step for audits, at least for sensitive reports. Brian said the process should be kept in the community as much as possible. Antony asked if the appeal would be about whether the process was followed or whether the decision itself was correct. If it was just about reviewing the procedure, the RIPE NCC’s Legal team could handle this. Salam said it could be about either. Using the analogy of a court case, there should be an entirely new group to assess it. Brian agreed but said the number of people available would be the biggest obstacle. Leo said the TF had decided the RIPE Chair would be the final assessor in an appeal, and they could be more explicit about that. Antony said people might then be tempted to push cases to the Chair. Leo said it would be fine to see the process tested in minor appeals and improve from there. The group discussed whether changes were needed in other sections. Brian noted the section about statistical reporting had been well-received by the community. Leo agreed and said it made people feel more confident in the CoC Team. Antony said some people were concerned about there being permanent bans in the section about consequences. The group discussed this and concluded there needed to be an option for permanent bans. Brian noted that the section about loss of office could reassure people that the WGs rather than the CoC Team held the power to officially remove chairs from office. 6. AOB Leo said the risk item needed to be on the next meeting’s agenda, as well as a discussion about the updates to the process document. They also needed to decide what they would do to protect the CoC Team from potential legal threats and financial damages. This would probably be part of the recruitment process document rather than the main process document. Antony suggested asking the community for comments on the recruitment process document when publishing the updated main process document. Leo said it was better to do this separately. He noted that Denesh would chair the next meeting. Brian said he might not be able to attend. Leo said they could reduce the agenda if needed based on how many could attend. 7. Actions -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. -RIPE NCC to review appeals text and clarify that the RIPE Chair is the final stage of appeal. -Athina to update the sections on data protection and legal protection for the CoC Team.

1 0

Draft Minutes – CoC TF Thirty-Fourth Call
by Kjerstin Burdiek 07 Nov '22

07 Nov '22

Dear TF members, Here are the minutes from our last call. Cheers Kjerstin *** 12 October 15:00 (UTC+2) Attendees: Antony Gollan, Brian Nisbet, Leo Vegoda, Salam Yamout Scribe: Kjerstin Burdiek Summary: The TF discussed their plans for RIPE 85. These included a presentation by the CoC consultant and drop-in sessions for attendees to discuss the RIPE CoC. The group decided to hold several sessions over multiple days during breaks at the meeting. Next they discussed what updates were needed to the draft process documents in response to the community discussion on the mailing lists. The group decided to publish a blog post addressing some of the concerns that were raised and outlining some changes they would make in the process documents based on community members’ suggestions. They would publish this blog post early in the week before RIPE 85. The TF also planned for a short meeting on Monday evening during the RIPE Meeting. 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. -Antony to speak with the CoC consultant and other relevant parties about a possible CoC presentation at RIPE 85 Antony said this was done, and a plenary presentation had been aceepted by the RIPE Meeting PC for Tuesday. -Athina to report on several risk evaluations This action was put on hold until Athina could be present. Antony shared that the RIPE NCC Legal team was looking into this. -Athina to investigate the scale of risk that data might be needed in a court. This action was put on hold until Athina could be present. -Athina to review language over data retention, training and the broader team. This action was put on hold until Athina could be present. -Athina to evaluate the risk of discovery in common-law jurisdictions and what language is needed in communications templates. This action was put on hold until Athina could be present. -Leo to contact the Diversity in Tech session organiser to say the TF would not need time for a discussion. Leo had contacted the organiser about this. 4. Risk This item was put on hold until Athina could be present. 5. RIPE 85 Leo shared that the office hours had been renamed drop-in sessions. He asked when the best times for these sessions would be. Antony suggested Wednesday and said the RIPE NCC Events team had confirmed a room would be available for them. Leo said they should advertise these sessions for attendees. Antony suggested doing so in the blog post. Leo asked which TF members could attend the drop-in sessions, as he would not be at the meeting. The TF members discussed their availability. Leo said the sessions should be during breaks, with signs pointing attendees to the room. The TF discussed the best times and decided on holding several sessions over multiple days. 6. Document Updates Leo said the RIPE Chair Team had not found there to be consensus on the documents yet. In response, he would inform the community that the TF was preparing a blog post on updates to the CoC process documents. He would share this message with the other TF members but first wanted to hear what changes they thought were needed in the process documents. Brian said they should not make major changes to the documents. No change would meet all of the community’s requests. Leo said the objections to the documents had mostly not engaged with substantive elements of the process. Some parts of the process appeared to have been misunderstood. Antony said he had spoken to Mirjam about the nature of consensus. It included the concept of asked and answered, where answering an objection would suffice for addressing it even if the objection still stood. The TF could simply respond to the criticism without needing to change the document. The RIPE NCC Comms team had drafted a blog post for this. Leo said this made sense, but there were some things the TF could change in response to the concerns. One example would be mentioning the CoC Team’s ability to disregard spurious reports. He invited Antony to share the blog the Comms team had drafted. 7. AOB Brian asked when the TF could publish the blog post. Antony said he would share the blog with the group by the end of the day, and they could publish it the following week. Brian said it should be before RIPE 85. Salam suggested the TF have a short meeting at the start of RIPE 85. The group discussed the best time to meet and decided on Monday evening, with Leo attending virtually. Leo questioned whether it was wise to publish the blog post on the Monday before the RIPE Meeting. Salam suggested publishing it after the drop-in sessions so they would have more feedback. Brian asked why Leo thought Monday would not be a good day to publish it. Leo said there were a lot of competing events then. Salam’s idea could work. Antony said it would be best to publish this before the meeting so the TF could point people to it. Then Mirjam could mention it in her opening plenary. Brian said the group should address the discussion that had been raised on the mailing lists through this blog post, which they could reference in conversations at the meeting. The TF could write a post-meeting blog if needed. Leo said in that case, they should publish the blog early next week. Brian noted that the risk evaluation and indemnity information would likely be another matter raised at the drop-in sessions, which the TF should prepare for. 8. Actions -Antony to schedule the drop-in CoC sessions at RIPE 85. -TF to find a room for a Monday evening meeting during RIPE 85. -TF to respond to the draft blog post by Friday.

1 0

Draft agenda for CoC TF meeting on Wednesday, 9 November
by Leo Vegoda 02 Nov '22

02 Nov '22

Hi, Here is a draft agenda for our meeting next Wednesday. I think the list of actions in the third item will be updated before the meeting. Please let me know if you’d like to adjust the draft agenda. 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 Antony to speak with the CoC consultant and other relevant parties about a possible CoC presentation at RIPE 85 Athina to investigate the scale of risk that data might be needed in a court. Athina to review language over data retention, training and the broader team. Athina to evaluate the risk of discovery in common-law jurisdictions and what language is needed in communications templates. 5 mins Status RIPE 85 All Feedback from RIPE 85 10 mins Discussion Risk Athina/All Discuss Athina’s report of risk evaluations and decide next steps if any 10 mins Decision Doc updates All Agree specific changes to make in updated drafts: Are any changes needed for the recruitment process document? What changes should be made to the operational process document? 20 mins Decisions AOB ? ? ? ? Actions NCC Review actions agreed during the meeting 5 mins Action list

1 0

No meeting on 26 October
by Leo Vegoda 22 Oct '22

22 Oct '22

Hi, For the avoidance of doubt, we will not meet on Wednesday, 26 October. Kind regards, Leo

1 0

Draft Labs Article
by Antony Gollan 14 Oct '22

14 Oct '22

Dear TF members, As discussed on the call, here's a draft labs article that Kjerstin has put together - thoughts welcome: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nig5sm7Zze8eQpfqZr6dnlKdnC9DrDA3JrYtH1W… Cheers Ant

4 4

Draft Minutes – CoC TF Thirty-Third Call
by Kjerstin Burdiek 11 Oct '22

11 Oct '22

Dear TF members, Here are the minutes from our last call. Cheers Kjerstin *** 28 September 15:00 (UTC+2) Attendees: Denesh Bhabuta, Athina Fragkouli, Antony Gollan, Brian Nisbet, Leo Vegoda, Salam Yamout Scribe: Kjerstin Burdiek Summary: The TF discussed how to handle the issue of data retention in several situations. To prepare for any possible legal actions against the RIPE NCC and CoC Team members, Athina said they could include indemnification clauses in the terms and conditions of meetings and suggested including similar language in the process documents. The group considered also extending the data retention period to cover the legal statute of limitations. The TF next discussed how to ensure shadow team members’ ability to access report data and decided to consider them full members of the CoC Team who were receiving more training while in reserve. Athina said she would look into whether training should be stated as one of the purposes for data retention. The group also discussed including an indemnification clause in the report webform to guarantee confidentiality and whether there should be such a clause for mailing lists too. The TF then went over their plans for RIPE 85, which included the CoC consultant giving a general presentation about CoCs in the community plenary and possibly answering questions at the Diversity in Tech session. The group would also prepare office hours for them to discuss the CoC with the community. The group decided to ask Mirjam if there was consensus on the documents ahead of RIPE 85. 1. Minutes The minutes from the last meeting were approved. 2. Agenda There were no changes to the agenda. 3. Actions -Athina to investigate data retention and potential court proceedings against the RIPE NCC and appeals. Athina said the RIPE NCC, as the implementer of the CoC Team’s decisions, had a liability waiver in the Terms and Conditions of events that would protect the organisation from lawsuits. The RIPE NCC would still need to demonstrate that it had acted according to the CoC decision, but data retention would not be required beyond evidence of the decision. There would also be an indemnification clause in the Terms and Conditions for the CoC Team. If someone sued anyway, the CoC Team members could choose to defend themselves by sharing relevant information about the case. She suggested including court proceedings as one of the purposes of data retention and to extend the time period of retention to cover the statute of limitations for a court case. Salam asked if Athina knew of any previous lawsuit against an organisation enforcing a CoC. Athina said she was not aware of one. Salam said this meant including protection against this in the process document would make it long and unwieldy for no reason. Athina said the TF still needed to be prepared. The arbitration process did say that its decisions could be challenged in court, although no one had done so yet. Leo asked Athina to look into how likely it was that they would need the extended data retention period. The TF should only add this if it was truly needed, as it would indicate to the community that lawsuits were likely. Salam said there was likely a very small risk of lawsuits. -Athina to check what case data the shadow team could, or should, have access to Leo reminded the TF that this was a suggestion from the CoC consultant. The shadow team was a backup team that followed cases so they could be trained as full team members. Athina said training was a legitimate reason to access data, so this should not be a problem for GDPR compliance. However, one problem could be that involving everyone in cases for training would make the whole team no longer impartial and unable to participate in appeals. The group discussed whether the CoC Team training would consist of hypothetical scenarios or reviewing real cases and decided it would be a mix of both. Antony said the shadow team would consist of people who had already been trained and were preparing to join the official CoC team. Athina asked whether the shadow team would then be considered part of the CoC Team. Antony said they would be, but some team members would sit in on a case and some would sit out. Those who had been accepted and trained would have to sit out if the team was already full. Athina asked if this meant they were all on the CoC Team, with some on a case and some being trained. Brian said there would be a certain number of people on the active CoC team, with some working on cases and others looking at appeals. There would also be a certain number of people who were trained and would be rotated into the active team when someone else left. It was this latter group who might be observing cases in order to be better trained for when they officially joined the team. They would still be bound by confidentiality. The group discussed in more detail why these team members were not on the active team and decided this could occur when the active team was full. Brian said these reserve members were also useful in case active team members left suddenly for reasons like burnout. Athina said this was why the CoC Team had a smaller assessment group reviewing reports. The group considered this and decided the shadow team was still part of the active team as there was no true limit to the team size. Leo asked if the TF should add training as a purpose of data retention. Antony said they should leave the text as it was since the TF now considered everyone a member of the team. Leo said they might want to specifically state that training was one purpose in order to be transparent to the community about when and why data might be retained. Athina said she did not think this was necessary as these would just be other team members looking at a case, but she would review this. -Antony to investigate what is practical in terms of consultant support at RIPE 85 and what the RIPE NCC would be prepared to support. Antony said the CoC consultant could be there for the whole week. Mirjam had suggested the consultant present in the community plenary, which Antony would prepare for. The consultant would also give face-to-face training to the Board at the meeting and could present at the Diversity in Tech session if there were questions remaining. Brian asked what the content of this presentation would be, as the TF did not want to start another discussion on the RIPE CoC. Antony said the presentation would be about implementing CoCs in technical communities in general. The consultant could use their experience to address people’s concerns. Brian said the consultant should be prepared for this to lead to a discussion of the RIPE CoC. Antony said if this happened, the session moderator could steer the conversation back to CoCs generally. But having the second CoC session might be unnecessary. Leo asked if this plan was definitely going ahead. Antony said it was as long as they had enough time to submit the proposal. If not, the consultant was still prepared to do the Diversity session. The TF should also have the CoC consultant at the office hours. -Leo to write down possible talking points for the office hours at RIPE 85 and share them with the TF. This action was marked as complete. There were already some responses to the document. -Antony to speak with the CoC consultant and other relevant parties about a possible CoC presentation at RIPE 85. This action was marked as complete per the previous discussion. 4. Data Retention Leo brought up a situation at DEFCON where someone challenged a CoC decision in court. The focus of the case had been on discovery regarding the reporter. He asked Athina if the TF should consider this. Athina said this was indeed a relevant CoC case. In the Netherlands, this was not a concern as the country was not a common law jurisdiction. But if the location of an incident was in such a common law jurisdiction, this would be something to consider. The TF could label private documents like reports as privileged and confidential to exclude them from discovery. Leo asked if the webform for reports should include text to that effect. The report would be reviewed by a member of the RIPE NCC Legal team to guarantee confidentiality. Athina said that if the form went to a lawyer, it was indeed privileged and confidential by default. However, in civil law, anything not public was private, making these reports confidential regardless. The TF should still review the webform and related documents as to whether they should add the phrase privileged and confidential. Leo asked Athina to review the scale of the risk here, such as how often RIPE Meetings had been in common law jurisdictions. 5. Indemnification Athina said they could ensure indemnity for team members in cases where the CoC Team had to apply sanctions by having a provision in the meeting terms and conditions. The question was whether they needed a similar clause for the mailing lists. Brian said the focus should be on meetings, which had more impact on people’s careers, as there were unlikely to be lawsuits about mailing list bans. Leo said mailing lists were likely to see less usage in the coming years anyway, so they may need to consider terms and conditions for different kinds of technology in the future. 6. RIPE 85 Leo shared questions Mirjam had asked about the TF’s plans for RIPE 85. He asked whether the TF should reserve time to discuss the process documents at the community plenary. Brian said he was not in favour of this as it would not start a fruitful discussion. Denesh agreed this was not a good use of time. Leo said recent discussions about the CoC on the MLs were out of scope for implementation, and the only relevant issues were some small details about the process and the wording. One was whether an accused person would get to share their side of events, which the CoC TF could make clearer in the document. Antony noted the document was not explicit that there would be more in-depth investigation and review, also involving the RIPE Chair, when deciding on serious consequences. Brian agreed there was still some work to do on the document, but a discussion at the plenary would not help with this. Antony said having the CoC consultant at the community plenary could inform later discussion on the list about the RIPE CoC. A specific RIPE CoC discussion alongside this general CoC presentation would not help with this. Leo noted the TF did not want the process documents on the community plenary agenda. Brian said Mirjam could at least mention them. Salam said it was important to discuss the basic concept of a CoC and how it was beneficial. But the CoC TF’s work was practically done, so they should not discuss the process documents specifically and should just answer community members’ questions. Brian said in his experience presenting the CoC to the community, there were some who would not accept it no matter what. The TF should not do any sort of public Q&A session. Salam suggested having a table for the TF at the meeting so community members could come and have discussions. Antony said the office hours could be the right space for this. Leo said this confirmed the need for office hours at RIPE 85. He asked Antony to find a slot at the meeting for this. The CoC consultant should be present for this, as well as someone from the TF. Leo would give Mirjam a summary of the TF’s discussion about final changes to the process documents and ask her if this was enough to declare consensus ahead of the RIPE Meeting or if revision was necessary. He asked whether they should have the CoC process discussion at the Diversity in Tech session. Brian said this could derail the session, so they would need to carefully coordinate with the session organiser on how to handle this. Antony said the discussion there could be a continuation of the broad conversation about CoCs, not the RIPE CoC specifically. Leo noted they would not need time allotted in the Diversity in Tech session. He asked if there was anything else the TF needed from Mirjam. Brian said it would be good for Mirjam to mention the CoC at the start of the plenary and that there would be a CoC Team at the next RIPE Meeting. 7. AOB There was no other business. 8. Actions -Athina to investigate the scale of risk that data might be needed in a court. -Athina to review language over data retention, training and the broader team. -Athina to evaluate the risk of discovery in common-law jurisdictions and what language is needed in communications templates. -Leo to contact the Diversity in Tech session organiser to say the TF would not need time for a discussion.

1 0

Draft agenda for Wednesday's meeting
by Leo Vegoda 09 Oct '22

09 Oct '22

Hi, Here is a draft agenda for Wednesday's meeting. 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 - Antony to speak with the CoC consultant and other relevant parties about a possible CoC presentation at RIPE 85 - Athina to report on several risk evaluations 5 mins Status Risk Athina/All Discuss Athina’s report of risk evaluations and decide next steps if any 15 mins Decision RIPE 85 NCCl Confirmation of time, date, and location for the drop-in session(s) 5 mins Awareness Doc updates All Decide on what to change and key points to make in blog post 20 mins Decisions AOB ? ? ? ? Actions NCC Review actions agreed during the meeting 5 mins Action list

1 0

Volunteers for the Code of Conduct Team "drop in" session(s) in Belgrade
by Leo Vegoda 06 Oct '22

06 Oct '22

Hi, I am planning to be in Belgrade and want to make these drop in sessions[1] a priority. But, there is a small risk that I won't be able to make it in person. I've just spent several hours in the emergency room at the hospital and need to get a medical sign-off before I can fly. Who else plans to be in Belgrade? Kind regards, Leo [1] Vesna suggested the term as a more welcoming alternative to "office hours".

2 1

Draft Minutes – CoC TF Thirty-Second Call
by Kjerstin Burdiek 27 Sep '22

27 Sep '22

Dear TF members, Here are the minutes from our last call. Cheers Kjerstin *** 14 September 15:00 (UTC+2) Attendees: Antony Gollan, Brian Nisbet, Leo Vegoda Scribe: Kjerstin Burdiek Summary: The TF discussed outreach they had done to recruit members for the CoC Team. There were no available candidates yet, but the TF had received some useful comments and would continue to reach out. The TF also considered what to prepare for their planned office hours at RIPE 85. They brought up possible questions people might have that they should prepare answers for, such as the extent of duties required and what support would be available for Team members. The group planned to start preparing some possible answers to these questions. The group also considered what else they should do at RIPE 85. A full presentation of the CoC process documents was not needed, but the RIPE Chair would include a mention of them in the opening and closing plenaries. The TF also discussed whether the CoC consultant, who would be at the meeting, should give a presentation about how CoCs generally work in technical communities to address some community concerns about CoCs. The group thought this might be useful but decided it would be best to discuss this with the consultant first to hear what the content would be and if it would give the right message to the community. 1. Minutes The minutes from the last meeting were approved. 2. Agenda The agenda item on data retention was put on hold until Athina could be present. Antony said he would ask Athina to check this section in the document. 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 topic would be discussed at the WG Chairs session at RIPE 85. - (Ongoing) TF to think about the appropriate level of process to allow further improvements to the CoC. Leo suggested leaving this to the CoC Team to decide so they would have more freedom to make improvements. He marked this as no longer an action for the CoC TF. -Athina to investigate data retention and potential court proceedings against the RIPE NCC and appeals. This action remained on hold until Athina could be present. -Athina to check what case data the shadow team could, or should, have access to This action remained on hold until Athina could be present. -Antony to investigate what is practical in terms of consultant support at RIPE 85 and what the RIPE NCC would be prepared to support. Antony said he had contacted the consultant, who was willing to provide support at RIPE 85. The TF could go forward with this upon getting official approval from the RIPE NCC. The consultant could also provide some education about the CoC at the RIPE Meeting. -RIPE NCC to mark up webpages for the updated process documents. This action was marked as complete. -Leo to draft a blog post and announcement for the community about the updated process documents. This action was marked as complete. 4. Outreach Leo gave an update on candidates he had reached out to as possible members of the first CoC Team. While one had shared suggestions for ways to improve RIPE Meetings alongside implementing the CoC, this person was not available to serve on the Team. Leo would continue to reach out to possible candidates. Antony said he had spoken to Mirjam about the suggestions the candidate had made and thought this discussion would be relevant in the community plenary at RIPE 85. The group discussed some recent comments about the CoC on RIPE MLs and decided it was best not to respond to them at the moment. Leo asked the group to consider reaching out to possible candidates as well. 5. Office Hours Leo said the TF should think about logistical needs for the office hours, like reserving a room. The TF should also prepare answers for questions people might ask in the office hours. Antony said people would want to know what the duties would be for serving on the CoC Team. They might also wonder what legal liability they could face and if they would get support from the RIPE NCC. Brian agreed and added that people would want to know whether they could leave the Team whenever they wished. Antony said it would be good to hear from the trusted contacts about how many reports they had received. Leo wondered if someone might deliberately try to test the CoC system. Antony said some people might use the anonymous online form to make illegitimate reports. Leo said he would write down some possible questions and answers and share this with the other TF members to add their thoughts. 6. AOB Antony asked what they should plan for the RIPE Meeting, such as a mention of the CoC process documents in the opening plenary. Leo said Mirjam would mention them in the opening and closing plenaries, and they could give her some slides for this. But preparing a whole presentation would take too much work at this stage. Brian said a presentation would not be useful as they had already given the community a lot of time to discuss the CoC process. Leo said a discussion about recruitment could be helpful. Antony said the CoC consultant could speak at the community plenary about how CoCs work in technical communities. This could start a general conversation in the community that would address concerns they might have. Leo asked what the goal of this would be. Such a presentation could make it seem like there was not already consensus on the CoC. Antony said this could start a series of discussions educating the community about CoCs in general. The consultant had enough experience to answer any questions the community might have. Brian echoed Leo’s concern that this could give the impression they were still trying to persuade people to support the CoC. Antony said they could mitigate this with the right introduction to the topic. They could emphasise that this was about CoCs in general, not the RIPE community’s CoC specifically. Leo suggested presenting about CoC success stories. Antony said the consultant could present a case study of pitfalls and solutions in other communities’ CoC processes. Brian said they should speak to Mirjam and the consultant about this and pitch this carefully. Leo said the TF should decide on this after Antony had spoken to the CoC consultant about what they would like to present. Antony said he would work on this. 7. Actions -Leo to write down possible talking points for the office hours at RIPE 85 and share them with the TF. -Antony to speak with the CoC consultant and other relevant parties about a possible CoC presentation at RIPE 85.

1 0

Draft agenda for CoC TF meeting on 28 September (was: Fwd: Code of Conduct Task Force Plans for RIPE 85)
by Leo Vegoda 23 Sep '22

23 Sep '22

Hi, Here is a draft agenda for our meeting on Wednesday, next week. One of the items relates to the message below, from Mirjam. 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 investigate data retention and potential court proceedings against the RIPE NCC and appeals. - Athina to check what data the shadow team could, or should, have access to - Antony to investigate what is practical in terms of consultant support at RIPE 85 and what the RIPE NCC would be prepared to support. 5 mins Status Data retention Athina/All Review the action: - What is required? - What flexibility is there and how would we like to use it? - DEFCON case and dicovery 15 mins Decision Indemnification Athina/All How can the Team be protected? 15 mins Information RIPE 85 All Actions arising from Mirjam’s note 15 mins Actions Actions NCC Review actions agreed during the meeting 5 mins Action list ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Mirjam Kuehne <mir(a)zu-hause.nl> Date: Fri, 23 Sept 2022 at 09:01 Subject: Code of Conduct Task Force Plans for RIPE 85 To: Leo Vegoda <leo(a)vegoda.org> Cc: RIPE Chair Team <chair-team(a)ripe.net> Hi Leo, Please feel free to pass this on to the rest of the Task Force. I'd like to confirm/discuss our plans for RIPE 85: - Do we need to reserve time to discuss the two open TF documents at the community plenary? - Do you want a speaking slot or should I include this in my update? - Will there be another publication/mail from the Code of Conduct TF prior to RIPE 85? - Are you still planning to set up office hours to be available for potential Code of Conduct Team members and possibly also for other feedback? If so, do you need help to set this up? I asked the Trusted Contacts to participate in these office hours (BTW, Rob Evans won't be at RIPE 85 :-/ ) - Valerie Aurora will attend the RIPE meeting and will give a presentation, possibly as a regular plenary talk. If that doesn't work, we will give her a slot in the community plenary - We could use the Diversity in Tech session for a discussion of the Code of Conduct process. Valerie will also attend. Vesna is in charge of organising this session and we're still finalising the agenda. Input welcome - Anything else you need? Also, some one just shared this with me: https://www.un.org/management/sites/www.un.org.management/files/un-system-m… Worth considering? Kind regards, Mirjam

1 0

Draft agenda for tomorrow's meeting
by Leo Vegoda 13 Sep '22

13 Sep '22

Hi, Here's a draft agenda for our meeting tomorrow. Sorry for sending it out so much later than usual. 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 - (Ongoing) TF to think about the appropriate level of process to allow further improvements to the CoC. - Athina to investigate data retention and potential court proceedings against the RIPE NCC and appeals. - Athina to check what data the shadow team could, or should, have access to - Antony to investigate what is practical in terms of consultant support at RIPE 85 and what the RIPE NCC would be prepared to support. - RIPE NCC to mark up webpages for the updated process documents - Leo to draft a blog post and announcement for the community about the updated process documents 5 mins Status Data retention Athina/All Review the action: - What is required? - What flexibility is there and how would we like to use it? 10 mins Decision Outreach Leo Status update 10 mins Information Office hours All What questions do we think we might get and how should we prepare ourselves? 20 mins Drafts ready for publication Actions NCC Review actions agreed during the meeting 5 mins Action list

1 0

Draft Minutes – CoC TF Thirty-First Call
by Kjerstin Burdiek 13 Sep '22

13 Sep '22

Dear TF members, Here are the minutes from our last call. Cheers Kjerstin *** 31 August 15:00 (UTC+2) Attendees: Antony Gollan, Leo Vegoda Scribe: Kjerstin Burdiek Summary: The TF discussed the updated process and recruitment process documents and went over the feedback from the CoC consultant. They considered how to set the size of the Team and decided it would be best to have a minimum of five but no maximum, where community members outnumbered RIPE NCC staff. The assessment group would have at least one RIPE NCC staff member and at least two community members. The TF discussed whether the larger Team should review the assessment group’s decisions but decided against it. The TF also determined that the CoC Team could make decisions on its own and then inform the RIPE Chair rather than needing approval. Finally, the TF noted the legal questions that still needed to be answered regarding the shadow team and data retention. They planned to share these documents with other TF members for comments by 9 September. Once the legal questions were resolved, the TF would then share the documents with the community for a final review period before RIPE 85. At RIPE 85, the TF planned to focus on recruitment efforts for the CoC Team. 1. Minutes Approval of last meeting’s minutes was deferred until next meeting. 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 had discussed this with Mirjam, and they would put this topic on the agenda for the WG Chairs’ session at RIPE 85. Antony said Mirjam had also asked to repeat the CoC training with the WG Chairs. Leo said this would be good. - (Ongoing) TF to think about the appropriate level of process to allow further improvements to the CoC. Leo said this was on hold so that the CoC Team could decide this rather than the TF. Antony asked if he should add in the process document that the CoC Team would do a yearly review of the documents for possible improvements. Leo said this would be fine as long as the wording was broad enough to include possible improvements to the overall process and the CoC itself. -Leo to speak with the RIPE Chair Team to schedule a discussion with WG Chairs Leo marked this action as complete. -Athina to investigate data retention and potential court proceedings against the RIPE NCC and appeals. This was on hold until Athina could be present. -Athina to check what case data the shadow team could, or should, have access to This was on hold until Athina could be present. Leo said someone on the RIPE NCC’s Legal team needed to check this so the TF would know whether to include this in the process document. Antony suggested that the CoC Team could be bigger, and the shadow team could be formed from the Team members. Leo said there might not be enough volunteers for a larger Team. The legal analysis for the shadow team still needed to be prepared just in case. -Antony to investigate what is practical in terms of consultant support at RIPE 85 and what the RIPE NCC would be prepared to support Antony said he had discussed this with the consultant and was working out their availability for RIPE 85. The consultant was at least able to be on call at the meeting and could possibly attend. Leo said it would be ideal if the consultant could attend so they could have a better understanding of the RIPE community’s culture. Antony said cost-wise it would be best to have the consultant there for a couple of days rather than for the whole meeting. -Antony to adjust calendar invites for new bi-weekly meetings Leo marked this action as complete. 4. Data Retention Leo put this item on hold until RIPE NCC Legal staff could be present. 5. Working Drafts Leo said the TF should share these documents with the community before RIPE 85 so the TF could talk about recruitment at the meeting. They could do an office hour there for people who were interested to stop by for information. He asked Antony to put the updated drafts of the process documents on a webpage and send them to the other members of the CoC TF for comments by Friday, 9 September. He also asked him to approach the RIPE NCC’s Legal staff about the legal questions the TF needed answered before posting the documents. Antony shared the process document and pointed out some wording he had updated. Leo said that he was concerned the CoC Team would not get a lot of volunteers. For this reason, he suggested not requiring the smaller assessment group to have a specific number of members and instead just saying there should be more community members than RIPE NCC staff in the group. Antony suggested saying one RIPE NCC staff member and at least two community members. Leo said this was fine as a minimum. Antony pointed out the updated timeline in the document stating it could take up to a week to form the assessment group to review a report. Leo agreed with this timeline as Team members’ availability would vary during the year. Antony asked whether the rest of the CoC Team should also look at the assessment group’s report. He noted the Team already had a review process. Leo said this was not necessary because there needed to be Team members who could later conduct a review. Antony asked whether the CoC Team would make a decision and then inform the RIPE Chair or if the Team would need the Chair’s approval. He had discussed this with Mirjam, who said the former was fine as long as the Chair could dismiss a Team if its decisions were inappropriate. Leo said this made sense so there were stricter lines between who was in charge of oversight in this process. Antony agreed, as this empowered the Team more and would increase community trust in them. Leo said the updated text on data protection was easier to read and would be perfect as long as the Legal team signed off on it. Antony said the process document was overall ready to share. Leo agreed and said the TF should go ahead with sharing it for feedback. Antony raised the fact people may take issues with anonymous reports, as they might want to know who reported them. The TF discussed this and decided it would not likely be an issue. Antony shared the updated recruitment process document. The TF considered whether to make a distinction between skills versus lived experience when considering the background of the CoC Team members and decided against it. They went over wording changes in the document. Antony asked whether to put a minimum for the Team size and suggested at least five. Leo agreed and said the TF should not add a maximum, just that community members would outnumber RIPE NCC staff. Antony asked if the TF should specify what kinds of professional experience would qualify for the Team. Leo said some experience with foreign legal systems would be useful. Antony agreed but said it would not be necessary to state this. He asked how long the term limits should be. Leo said one year would make it easier to get volunteers. Antony said longer might be better considering the length and cost of training. Leo said this would be a good question to ask the community. The Team needed to balance having an overlap between outgoing and incoming members while preventing burnout. Antony noted that burnout might not become that big of an issue as there might not be many reports. Leo said the social events at meetings would increase the risk of CoC violations. Antony said there should be the same time period to select Team members from RIPE NCC staff and from the community. Leo said this was fine as long as community members always had some Legal staff to support them. He noted that it was important to clarify the local host did not have access to reports. The TF went over the section about CoC Team members not discussing reports publicly. Leo suggested some wording changes in this section to make it more general. Antony updated wording in the section about the initial appointment of the CoC Team. Leo said this section was also part of what the TF should ask the community about. Regarding the first appointments, these were more flexible, but the intent was that Mirjam could initially offer some people longer or shorter terms as needed so there would be overlap. 6. AOB Antony said he could get these documents online soon. Leo asked Antony to share them with the TF for feedback before Friday, 9 September. Then the TF could publish them for the community at the start of the following week. The TF should also consider what questions to ask the community about the documents. The final review period should end two weeks before RIPE 85 in October. 7. Actions -RIPE NCC to mark up webpages for the updated process documents. -Leo to draft a blog post and announcement for the community about the updated process documents.

1 0

Draft documents for TF review before announcement
by Leo Vegoda 05 Sep '22

05 Sep '22

Hi, Antony has marked up the draft document for publication. Can you please review them and share anything that must be changed before sharing with the whole community by the end of this Friday, 9 September. The plan is for the drafts to be announced with an e-mail and a blog post on Monday, 12 September. The drafts are at: - Draft RIPE Code of Conduct: Process and Consequences v2 and CoC Team: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-documents/other-documents/draft… - Draft RIPE Code of Conduct Team: Appointment and Responsibilities: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-documents/other-documents/draft… Thanks, Leo

1 0

Draft agenda for meeting on Wednesday, 31 August
by Leo Vegoda 30 Aug '22

30 Aug '22

Hi, When we meet next Wednesday, I'd like to review both working drafts and focus on what changes we need to make so that we can ask the RIPE community to review them. This includes finalising the description for the data retention section. Kind regards, Leo

2 1

Draft Minutes – CoC TF 30th Call
by Antony Gollan 29 Aug '22

29 Aug '22

Dear TF members, Here are the minutes from our last call. Cheers Ant *** *Draft Minutes – CoC TF 30th Call* 18 August 16:30 (UTC+2) *Attendees: *Denesh Bhabuta, Antony Gollan, Karla Liddle-White, Brian Nisbet, Leo Vegoda, Salam Yamout *Scribe:* Karla Liddle-White *Summary: * The TF discussed meeting with the WG Chair Collective to discuss coordination with the CoC Team. Leo said he would speak with the RIPE Chair Team to schedule a discussion. Leo also updated the group on his outreach efforts on recruiting members to the CoC Team. The TF then considered the Code of Conduct team size. They agreed that they there would be a larger team at first, with the ability for the team size to decrease over time once the team was established within the community. Next on the agenda was a discussion on outreach. The TF decided on several avenues which included speaking to individual community members, writing to the Diversity and RIPE mailing lists to communicate the intention to launch the recruitment process at RIPE 85. The group also considered whether there would be a shadow CoC team and what data the team would have access to. Finally, the group decided to make the meetings leading up to RIPE 85 biweekly. *1. Minutes* Review of the meeting minutes was deferred until the next meeting. *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* The TF discussed bringing an agenda item to a Working Group Chair meeting and it was agreed that they would organise a meeting either before or after RIPE 85. Brian said adding that as an agenda item at the RIPE 85 lunch was not advisable, since there were usually so many items on the agenda already. *Action: Leo to ask the RIPE Chair Team to schedule a discussion with WG Chairs. * *- (Ongoing) TF to think about the appropriate level of process to allow further improvements to the CoC.* This item was put on hold. *- Leo to reach out to candidates to see if they would be interested in joining the first CoC Team.* Leo reported that Rob had did not to intend to stand for the CoC team. He had also raised concerns of the size of the team and the volunteer nature of the roles; Leo added that he understood his decision here. *- RIPE NCC to revise the draft process and recruitment process documents and share them with the CoC consultant for review.* Leo marked this action as completed. *- Athina to investigate data retention and potential court proceedings against the RIPE NCC and appeals.* Action put on hold until Athina returned. *4. Team Size* *- How large should the Code of Conduct Team be and do we need to balance ideal size with sustainability? * The TF discussed the consultant’s suggestion of ideally having a slightly larger team for investigations. However, Leo noted that this may not be sustainable since they were looking for volunteers with particular skills and qualities and would need a regular turnover of volunteers to ensure people didn’t burn out. Brian also raised the issue that there was a relatively small volunteer base within the community. He added that they would need a mechanism that also worked for fewer people and Salam noted that they would need to add wording to the procedure to incorporate the variation in team size. Denesh said that it should be okay for the size of the team to vary over time, since it would depend on the complexity of the complaint and an assessment could be done on how long investigations were likely to take. The TF agreed that they would begin with the largest possible team size with the idea that it might vary and shrink over time as the CoC team became more established. The group also discussed the minimum size of the assessment group and confirmed that it would be three RIPE Community members and a member of the RIPE NCC. Leo suggested that they contract an expert to support the new team at the next RIPE Meeting, since they didn’t have specific step-by-step operating procedures and wouldn’t necessarily have strong expertise on the initial team. There was general agreement among the group for exploring this idea. Salam noted that they should add wording to the procedure document so the RIPE NCC could contract external people to be part of the team for given periods of time. *Action: Antony to investigate what is practical in terms of consultant support at RIPE 85 and what the RIPE NCC would be prepared to support.* *5. Outreach**- Develop a plan for outreach to potential team members before and during RIPE 85.* The TF discussed how they would outreach to specific people and the community overall. It was agreed that they would launch the recruitment process at RIPE 85 and would therefore need to communicate this prior to the meeting. The group agreed that they would reach out to individuals who would bring established credibility to the team and Salam suggested using the Diversity and RIPE mailing lists. Brian noted that communications should also include the benefits of joining, flexibility in the initial terms and available support for team members. The group also agreed that the drafts of the documents would need to be ready to go out with the announcement in the first week of September. Antony raised the question of a shadow team which hadn’t yet been confirmed in the documentation. The group then discussed the concept of a shadow team and what data would be available to them. Brian raised a concern that there may not be enough volunteers for one team, and that perhaps a second team could be left as a possibility if a number of people applied. Leo added that that if they were to have a shadow team, there was a question of what data the team should have access to, since they would not be directly involved in the decision-making process. He suggested asking for professional legal advice on the matter. *Action: Athina to check what data the shadow team could, or should, have access to.* *6. Schedule**- Decide on pace of meetings leading to RIPE 85* The group agreed on a biweekly schedule of meetings going forward with a new day and time. *Action: Antony to change the meeting time in the calendar to Wednesdays at 13:00 UTC/15:00 UTC+2, with Wednesday 31 August being the first meeting going forward.* *7. Actions* *- Leo to speak with the RIPE Chair Team to schedule a discussion with WG Chairs** **- Antony to investigate what is practical in terms of consultant support at RIPE 85 and what the RIPE NCC would be prepared to support** **- Athina to check what case data the shadow team could, or should, have access to** **- Antony to adjust calendar invites for new bi-weekly meetings*

1 0

Draft agenda for Thursday's meeting
by Leo Vegoda 14 Aug '22

14 Aug '22

Hi, Here's a draft agenda for Thursday's meeting. The intention is to focus on discussing some fundamental issues rather than discussing the specific wording in the working drafts. I hope we can reach agreement on these major issues and then look at aligning the words in the documents. 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 - (Ongoing) TF to think about the appropriate level of process to allow further improvements to the CoC. - 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. 5 mins Status Team size All How large should the Code of Conduct Team be and do we need to balance ideal size with sustainability? 20 mins Decision Outreach All Develop a plan for outreach to potential team members before and during RIPE 85 15 mins Review Schedule All Decide on pace of meetings leading to RIPE 85 5 mins Calendar invites Actions NCC Review actions agreed during the meeting 5 mins Action list

1 0

Updated CoC Team Document
by Antony Gollan 12 Aug '22

12 Aug '22

Dear TF members, I've updated the second document relating to the CoC Team: https://docs.google.com/document/d/10jTikOZCBpj2BwBsGEWc37xY47xAvTTJa68yUUs… I've included a few comments from our external consultant down the side. Cheers Ant

1 0

Draft Minutes – CoC TF Twenty-Ninth Call
by Kjerstin Burdiek 12 Aug '22

12 Aug '22

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.

1 0

Updated CoC Process Document
by Antony Gollan 11 Aug '22

11 Aug '22

Dear TF members, Here's the updated CoC Process document, with feedback from our external consultant incorporated: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Y6qEcSbDS3Lpew2MhWhyZ6c6rAUCaYjf19syh6b… I will send the second document (CoC Team) tomorrow. Cheers Antony

1 0

Updated working documents and next meeting
by Leo Vegoda 05 Aug '22

05 Aug '22

Hi, The RIPE NCC is working on incorporating feedback into our two working documents. These changes should be done and shared with the TF members by Thursday, 11 August. We'll then have a week to read and think about the changes and meet again on Thursday, 18 August. Kind regards, Leo

1 0

No meeting this week
by Leo Vegoda 02 Aug '22

02 Aug '22

Hi, As discussed at our last meeting, we're waiting on some external review of our working documents before we meet again. We don't have the drafts back yet, so we won't meet this week. I can't edit the group calendar invitation but you can remove this Thursday's entry from your calendars. Kind regards, Leo

2 1

A tiny bit of feedback
by Cynthia Revström 13 Jul '22

13 Jul '22

Hi, I just read the draft and while I know this comment is a bit late I was a bit confused by this line under the mailing list part of the list of consequences. > 1. Asked to apologise Publicly told not to repeat a kind of post I assume this might be two separate things or what has happened here? In the email Leo sent to ripe-list on 2022-06-19[1] they said the following: > 2. The RIPE Chair is a point of escalation. Making the RIPE Chair > involved in decisions at an earlier stage reduces the opportunity for > escalation later. I am not exactly sure what is meant by this but I personally feel like when it comes to temporary/permanent bans from future events/meetings it should always have to be approved by the RIPE chair or RIPE vice chair. (or at least they should be given a reasonable chance to veto it) This is especially as those consequences might not have to be as immediate, so they will have a bit more time to consider it. I also hope that needing to ban someone from future events/meetings would be rare enough for this to not be a big burden on the RIPE chair team. Apologies for this very late feedback and I totally understand if it is too late for this to make it in. [1]: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ripe-list/2022-June/002555.html -Cynthia

2 1

Updated Process Document
by Antony Gollan 08 Jul '22

08 Jul '22

Hi TF members, Ahead of our call, I've updated the process document - hopefully making the data protection information a little clearer and including a brief section on statistics/reporting (the updated parts are in blue). https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WBIGc_sC6Lt9fLzP4qZg2YIYhHX6uO05m4Jjxn7… Cheers Ant

1 0

Draft Minutes – CoC TF Twenty-Eighth Call
by Kjerstin Burdiek 05 Jul '22

05 Jul '22

Dear TF members, Here are the minutes from our last call. Cheers Kjerstin *** 23 June 16:30 (UTC+2) Attendees: Antony Gollan, Brian Nisbet, Leo Vegoda Scribe: Kjerstin Burdiek Summary: The TF discussed what changes were still needed in the text of the CoC process document. The wording in the section on data retention needed to be clarified, and the group also considered how much detail to include in the section on statistical reporting. The TF decided it was not necessary to state the exact kinds of reports the CoC Team would produce so long as the document stated the Team was required to do some reporting. The group also planned to add an appendix to the document explaining how it was produced. Next, Leo said the TF should prepare a document outlining the recruitment process, which would focus on how potential Team members could apply and how their applications would be reviewed. The group also considered whether to include Team members’ roles and responsibilities in this document or whether that should be kept separate so it could be updated as needed. The TF decided it did not need to split this into two documents yet. The group also planned how to begin recruitment for the first CoC Team and felt it was time to start considering possible candidates. One question for the group to think over until the next meeting was whether there should be a local liaison on the Team to help with cultural differences. Finally, the group decided to have the CoC consultant Antony was in contact with review both the process and draft recruitment process documents. 1. Minutes Approval of the minutes was deferred until next meeting. On the list, Brian had requested a change in the minutes to update the sentence “He brought up the example of the PC, where candidates sometimes joined with the intention of only staying for one or two meetings” to “He brought up the example of the PC, where some members joined at when the PC was first created, with the intention of only staying for one or two meetings.” 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. - (On hold) TF to think about the appropriate level of process to allow further improvements to the CoC. This action remained on hold. -Leo to gather templates for how WG Chairs could remind WG members about the CoC. Leo said he had shared a draft of the templates with Antony and Kjerstin so they could make adjustments. The TF should have this ready before RIPE 85, and ideally as soon as possible. Brian offered to assist with this. Antony said he would share the draft to the list for comments. -The RIPE NCC to clarify the section about data retention in the process document. Leo marked this action as ongoing. Antony said he would continue to clarify this section and would consult with the RIPE NCC’s Legal department about it. -Leo to draft a message for the list about the document’s revisions and asking for feedback. Leo marked this action as complete. There were no comments yet, perhaps due to the summer holidays. 4. Text Leo said the TF should make the section on the CoC Team’s statistical reporting clearer, with more detail about what the Team would report on. However, it would be challenging to predict what sorts of trends would need reporting. Brian said the TF could speak to the consultant about this or examine what other communities did reporting on. Another inspiration could be the RIPE NCC’s reporting, for example, on law enforcement interactions. Antony said the TF might just need to state that the CoC Team would be required to produce statistical reports. Leo said the TF could indeed look to the RIPE NCC’s law enforcement and sanctions reports as examples to imitate. Regarding the distinction between major and minor breaches and how these were reported, the TF itself did not need to define these. The TF just needed to say that there would be such reporting. The TF members agreed that this was all that was required. Leo said the TF needed to write an appendix about how they had produced the document. He offered to draft it but asked if the RIPE NCC would prefer to. Antony said he could take this on. He asked how far back in the process this appendix should go. Leo said Antony could use the information from the web page with the details about why, when and how this document was created. The TF also needed to better explain the legal rationale for the CoC Team’s data retention. 5. Recruitment Leo said the TF needed to create a document about recruitment with two parts, which were how the initial CoC Team would be created and how the Team would handle recruitment and onboarding going forward. The latter was most important to focus on. He would draft an open call for volunteers with instructions for how to apply. Then these applications would go to the RIPE Chair to select candidates based on diversity and other needs. Antony noted that the Programme Committee (PC) had a document outlining the responsibilities of a committee member. He asked whether the CoC Team needed such a document for its members. Leo said that adding this into the process document would be too large a change. He suggested using a webpage instead to outline the members’ responsibilities. Antony asked whether this third process document should just be about recruitment or also about the Team and its roles and responsibilities. Brian said they could have two documents but noted that the PC only had one for this information. The purpose of the document was to help applicants to the Team, so it did not need to be extremely detailed. He suggested the TF put the CoC Team’s duties into one document with the recruitment and then discuss with Mirjam if it should be split into two. Antony said the TF could decide later if this should be two documents but should include recruitment and expectations in this document. Brian emphasised that this could be one document, as the PC had done. Leo said the document describing the Team members’ roles was akin to a job vacancy announcement, so the TF should ensure this could be updated as needed. The process document would not be easily adaptable, so a webpage would be a more convenient way of conveying this information. Brian said he understood and that it would be fine for the TF to produce separate documents. Antony said the webpage Leo described would be maintained by the RIPE NCC’s Communications team and could then be changed too easily if a CoC Team member demanded asked them to. Brian said this information should be in a RIPE Document so it could not just be changed at the RIPE NCC’s discretion. Leo brought up the possible candidate pool for the CoC Team. To get the Team started, the TF should recruit people who might only serve briefly. He asked how the group should reach out to possible candidates. Antony said reaching out to personal contacts would be most effective, but the TF could do an open call alongside this. Brian asked what the steps should be as the TF initiated this process. Leo said the group should avoid publishing the documents and closing the TF before getting any volunteers for the CoC Team. The TF should instead seek out individuals for the first Team who would be active later on in trying to recruit more people for the CoC Team. Brian asked if the TF should start recruiting candidates now before the draft documents were published. Leo said this might be necessary to give people plenty of time to consider joining. If the process were ready to present at RIPE 85, then potential applicants would be more likely to comment on the document and officially sign up. Brian said the TF should come up with some potential applicants over the next few weeks that they could then approach. Leo said he would put an item in the next meeting’s agenda to discuss possible candidates. Brian noted that there was a local host representative on the PC, which could help bridge cultural differences. The TF might want to consider this as well. Leo noted that at nog.fi, they had discussed their CoC and given an introduction to the local culture for the meeting. Antony said this was a good idea but that not all local hosts might want to participate. Leo said the TF should perhaps leave this up to the RIPE NCC’s Events team. 6. AOB Antony asked when the TF should have the consultant review the process document. Brian said now would be good, given the small amount of feedback so far. Leo said the consultant should review the process document and a draft of the recruitment process document. He asked Antony to approach the consultant about this. 7. Actions -The RIPE NCC to review templates for how WG Chairs could remind WG members about the CoC. -The RIPE NCC to clarify the sections about data retention and statistical reporting in the process document. -Leo to prepare a draft of the recruitment process document. -All TF members to consider possible candidates to reach out to for the initial CoC Team and whether to have a liaison with local hosts.

1 0

Draft agenda for this week's meeting
by Leo Vegoda 04 Jul '22

04 Jul '22

Hi, Here is a draft agenda for this week's meeting. 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 - (Ongoing) TF to think about the appropriate level of process to allow further improvements to the CoC. - RIPE NCC to start updates to draft process document - Leo to draft and share a recruitment process document - All to think about people who might be willing to serve a term on the initial Code of Conduct Team 5 mins Status Recruitment process All Discuss working draft and make improvements as needed 20 mins Updated text Updates to draft process NCC Present initial text updates for discussion 15 mins Review AOB All Any other business ? mins - Actions NCC Review actions agreed during the meeting 5 mins Action list

4 10

Draft Minutes – CoC TF Twenty-Seventh Call
by Kjerstin Burdiek 22 Jun '22

22 Jun '22

Dear TF members, Here are the minutes from our last call. Cheers Kjerstin *** 9 June 16:30 (UTC+2) Attendees: Denesh Bhabuta, Antony Gollan, Brian Nisbet, Leo Vegoda Scribe: Kjerstin Burdiek Summary: The TF discussed how it could support WG Chairs in enforcing the CoC by sharing examples with them of ways to remind community members to follow the CoC. The TF also reviewed the feedback at the BoF session that was held during RIPE 84. One concern raised there was about whether the TF could gather a CoC Team that was both large enough and diverse. The TF considered the ideal Team size and settled on five people at a minimum. The group decided these should be community members who regularly attend meetings, but the Team should also be diverse in several respects. The TF discussed how the nomination process should look and agreed that candidates should nominate themselves, and then other community members could express their support. This would eliminate the need for a full background check to assess a candidate’s character. Additionally, the RIPE Chair would have final veto power for selecting candidates. Through this role, the Chair could also help ensure diversity in the CoC Team. The TF addressed how to recruit candidates and found that the best option was a combination of open calls for applications and TF members approaching possible candidates to see if they were interested. Finally, the TF planned its next steps and decided to send another message to the list asking for more feedback in order to produce a final draft of the document. 1. Minutes The minutes from the last two meetings 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 Leo noted that Brian had sent a message to the Anti-Abuse WG that was a good example of how WG Chairs could remind community members to abide by the CoC. Leo suggested sharing a document in the WG Chair Mattermost channel with examples of such messages. Antony said this sounded good. Brian noted that Chairs should still personalise these messages to the situation, but providing sample text to build off of was a good idea. Leo said giving examples to Chairs would be helpful as otherwise some would not know how to approach sending these messages. He suggested gathering templates from previous WG Chair messages about the CoC and sending this sample text to the RIPE NCC to adjust. - (Ongoing) TF to think about the appropriate level of process to allow further improvements to the CoC. Leo marked this action as on hold until the CoC had been more fully implemented. 3. BoF Leo said the feedback at the BoF had been supportive about the process. The few concerns raised were mainly about recruitment, especially regarding the ability to get a big enough team. Brian agreed this would probably be difficult, but the TF still needed to try to recruit enough people. Leo said the CoC Team should have at least five members: two main members and a RIPE NCC staff member, as well as a couple support members as backup. Most likely, the Team would end up needing more than five people, but it should not be too large so all members could still feel closely involved. Antony noted these should be people who regularly attend RIPE Meetings. Leo agreed the Team members should attend at least one RIPE Meeting a year. The TF should be wary of people signing up just for free travel to the meetings, as these people would not truly be interested in the work of the CoC Team. Travel funding should be available, but only to facilitate the work of the Team. Brian said the TF should just set up travel stipends the same way as was done for WG Chairs. Most likely CoC Team members would already be regular RIPE Meeting attendees. Antony said he had raised this topic with the training consultant, who said it was necessary to have some incentive for people to join the CoC Team as it was a difficult role. Brian agreed the role was difficult but suggested having something other than a travel stipend as an incentive. Leo said the TF could address this later if they did not get many volunteers for the Team. He noted that the BoF session also had feedback that the Team should not require background checks. Rather, the nomination should be supported by others in the community vouching for the candidate’s character. Antony said this was reasonable. Brian agreed, as the TF needed more than just self-nomination, and background checks were not a good solution. Leo asked whether, as suggested at the BoF, the RIPE Chair should have veto power for a nomination. Antony said the selection process being at the RIPE Chair’s discretion made it easier to reject candidates, as opposed to having strict criteria that could be challenged. Brian said that the RIPE Chair was the only viable entity to hold such veto power. Antony said the training consultant had noted there was no legally airtight way to reject people’s applications, but the TF still needed to come up with some means of doing so even if it was imperfect. Brian pointed out this was an unpaid role, so there was no real legal recourse for rejected candidates to challenge a decision. The RIPE Chair being the ultimate decision-maker was the easiest way of handling this, and the Chair could be challenged through the recall process if necessary. Leo said if the TF left this to the RIPE Chair, the RIPE Chair then had a responsibility to ensure the Team members were a balanced mix of different groups. Ensuring diversity was one reason the Chair could reject a particular candidate, at least for the current Team, and that candidate could be re-considered later on once the Team makeup had changed. Brian agreed that diversity considerations would be important in deciding which candidates to select, reject or defer. Leo said that based on the discussion at the BoF, ensuring team diversity was a very important aspect of the recruitment process, as a highly diverse group was necessary for the Team to function successfully. Antony asked if the TF should clarify in the document that a high level of diversity would be ideal but not necessary, in case they did not receive a diverse group of candidate applications. Leo noted that the TF was also limited by the diversity of the community itself, but the TF should at least set the goal of having a diverse CoC Team. Antony shared a comment from the training consultant that this problem might solve itself. People from diverse groups would be more likely to apply since they had more motivation to work toward a fairer, more balanced community. Brian said in his experience this had been the case. 4. Recruitment Antony said the consultant had suggested a CoC Team size of five to seven people and had emphasised the importance of having an overlap between Team members of different terms. He had shared with her the Team’s proposed nomination process, where community members expressed support for candidates, and the consultant was in favour but said to make sure rejections were handled in private. Brian noted this was completely different from the Programme Committee’s (PC) recruitment, where applications were more private. But this proposed method sounded wise for the CoC Team’s recruitment. Leo said if a team size of five to seven was the goal, this also delimited the amount of possible diversity. The TF could not cover every dimension of diversity but should target certain groups to encourage applications, and it should make sure to consider regional and linguistic diversity. LinkedIn advertising could be one channel for recruitment. Antony said the group could do LinkedIn ads for the RIPE NCC’s page followers, but the TF should be careful not to cast the net too broadly and look beyond the community. Leo agreed that they should only reach out to members of the community, but the TF should not target the most active community members. Brian said this would be something to discuss with Mirjam. He brought up the example of the PC, where candidates sometimes joined with the intention of only staying for one or two meetings. The TF could also approach people at meetings to see if they were interested. LinkedIn ads had too broad a reach and might portray the position as a job rather than a volunteer position. Ultimately, it would be best to do a combination of open calls and approaching possible candidates, while accepting that some might only join for a set amount of time. Leo said asking people if they were interested was indeed a good approach. Brian noted that it would be easier now that the TF could ask people in person rather than online. 5. Feedback on Draft Leo said there had been some comments for a few specific changes, but there had not been enough response to make a decision on the document. The TF needed at least basic support or disapproval. Antony suggested sending another email asking for feedback and noting that the TF was making a couple changes to the next draft. The email could also have some questions to prompt more response. Brian said that since they had put the document out several times with little response, the silence suggested approval. People might only react once the document had been implemented. Leo said this might indeed be the case, but it would be good to have a little more feedback. The TF should at least clean up the section on data retention. He asked the RIPE NCC to do this. Antony agreed to do so. Leo said he would write a message that included the changes to the draft, a request for feedback and a few leading questions. Brian noted that overall it might be a good sign that there had been no requests for major changes to the draft. 6. AOB The TF members discussed their availability for future meetings. Several were unavailable the following week, and as summer would be a difficult time to meet, the group considered mailing list discussions as a backup if necessary. Leo said the next meeting was therefore cancelled. In the meantime, the TF would focus on sending out the message asking for feedback. 7. Actions -Leo to gather templates for how WG Chairs could remind WG members about the CoC. -The RIPE NCC to clarify the section about data retention in the process document. -Leo to draft a message for the list about the document’s revisions and asking for feedback.

2 1

Draft agenda for tomorrow
by Leo Vegoda 08 Jun '22

08 Jun '22

Hi, Here is a draft agenda for tomorrow's CoC TF meeting. Kind regards, Leo Title Who What Time Outcome Minutes TF Review the draft minutes of the last formal meetings. 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 - (Ongoing) TF to think about the appropriate level of process to allow further improvements to the CoC. 5 mins Status BoF All Review the BoF comments: - Required dimensions of diversity for the team - Team size - Listening skills - Recruitment friction - Final approval by the RIPE Chair? 20 mins Decision Recruitment NCC Feedback from training vendor on recruitment process 10 mins Awareness Feedback on Draft All Just one public comment so far 5 mins Decision AOB All Any other business ? mins - Actions NCC Review actions agreed during the meeting 5 mins Action list

1 0

CoC TF Status Update
by Leo Vegoda 02 Jun '22

02 Jun '22

Hi, We did not have enough people in attendance for a formal meeting today. We had an informal conversation. We have got some on-list and off-list feedback on the draft process. We do need more feedback, though. We discussed how to recruit a team. Antony will investigate getting guidance from the company that has been identified to provide training. They have done this before and should know what has worked and why. We can then implement proven processes rather than try to invent them. Kind regards, Leo

1 0

Agenda for Thusrday
by Leo Vegoda 31 May '22

31 May '22

Hi, This Thursday, I think we should focus on the feedback we heard at the CoC TF BoF last week. https://ripe84.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/bofs/#tues If there is any feedback on the list by then, we should also discuss that. Thanks, Leo

1 2

Draft Minutes – CoC TF Twenty-Sixth Call
by Kjerstin Burdiek 31 May '22

31 May '22

Dear TF members, Here are the minutes from our last call. Cheers Kjerstin *** 12 May 16:30 (UTC+2) Attendees: Denesh Bhabuta, Athina Fragkouli, Antony Gollan, Brian Nisbet, Leo Vegoda Scribe: Kjerstin Burdiek Summary: The TF discussed the agenda for the upcoming BoF session at RIPE 84. The group considered how much time they should take to go over the process document in case audience members had questions. The TF settled on ten minutes for discussing the document so that the focus of the BoF could be on presenting the CoC Team training and recruitment processes. Antony shared the content of the training process he would present on, which would consist of two three-hour trainings involving useful lessons and roleplaying exercises. Athina also shared the content of her presentation on the recruitment process, which would go over the arbiter recruitment process and the arbiter criteria. She would also ask the audience about what they wanted the CoC Team recruitment process to be. The TF discussed the overall length of the BoF and said it would be fine to finish early as long as they got the feedback they needed. The group also determined that TF members who were not presenting could still jump in with comments during the session. Finally, the group planned to meet at RIPE 84 ahead of the BoF for more planning. 1. Minutes Approval of the minutes was deferred until next meeting. 2. Agenda There were no changes to the agenda. 3. BoF Agenda Leo asked the TF how they should adjust the BoF agenda for the audience’s needs. There had not been much feedback on the process document, so the TF might need to allot more time to discussion of this document at the BoF. However, there still needed to be adequate time to explain the training and recruitment processes. In light of this, he asked whether the TF wanted to extend the time they had on the agenda for going over the process document. The TF considered how long this discussion should be and settled on a maximum of ten minutes. Brian said there would likely be either no comments or just a couple questions. If someone did bring forward a lot of comments, it would not be worth spending a long time to address these as there had already been a long comment period for the process document. Leo suggested that the TF ask the audience at the BoF if they had read the document to gauge their knowledge of it. Denesh said people who had not read the document might come to the session to learn about it. Brian asked how the TF would respond if people had not read it. Leo said they should then encourage people to read it and share their feedback. Brian asked if the TF would then still talk about the CoC Team recruitment and training with the assumption the group would not later change these processes in the document. Leo said the recruitment and training were not that strongly correlated to the process document. The TF had not described the details of the training process in the text. Antony suggested asking audience members to put their hands up if they had read the document and to leave their hands up if they had comments. Then the TF could address these comments before moving on to the other agenda items. Athina suggested just presenting on the planned agenda items and taking questions during the discussion period. Leo said asked how much time the TF needed to present the training and recruitment processes. Antony said he would need five minutes at most. He would present about the consultant he had chosen to conduct the training. The training process would consist of two three-hour training sessions with lectures and roleplaying exercises. There would also be lessons on intercultural sensitivity, communication skills and investigation best practices. Leo said this sounded good. The TF still had up to 40 minutes for Athina’s presentation on the recruitment process. Athina said the TF should save some time after each part of the presentation to answer questions. She had prepared a presentation explaining the arbiter recruitment process and suggested asking the audience how they felt the CoC Team recruitment should look in comparison. The TF could also ask the audience what qualities a Team member should have, similar to the criteria for arbiter candidates. Leo said it was wise to ask the audience these questions. It would be fine if the BoF finished early so long as the TF had gotten the feedback they were looking for. Brian agreed this would be fine, but he did not expect the BoF to end early as there would probably be a lot of discussion. Leo asked Antony and Athina to share their presentation slides with him. 4. AOB Brian asked what the TF members who were not presenting should do at the BoF. Denesh suggested meeting in person on Monday at RIPE 84 to discuss this. Leo agreed to meeting and said if the other TF members wanted to chime in at certain points during the BoF, that would be fine. The TF discussed when they would each arrive at the RIPE Meeting. Leo asked Antony to cancel the next TF meeting due to RIPE 84.

1 0

No meeting on Thursday, 5 May
by Leo Vegoda 07 May '22

07 May '22

Hi, We won't meet tomorrow. There's not much we can achieve in a meeting right now. We still need some more feedback from the community and that will probably come at RIPE 84 in Berlin. We are preparing for the BoF. Kind regards, Leo

2 2

Draft Minutes – CoC TF Twenty-Fifth Call
by Kjerstin Burdiek 04 May '22

04 May '22

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.

1 0

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