- coc-tf - mailman.ripe.net

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