- coc-tf - mailman.ripe.net

Updated Zoom Link
by Antony Gollan 07 Apr '22

07 Apr '22

Sorry folks, Something funny with Zoom there, have made a new meeting - updated link here: https://ripe.zoom.us/j/91946472757 Cheers Ant

1 0

Updated Draft Procedural Document
by Antony Gollan 07 Apr '22

07 Apr '22

Dear TF members, Ahead of our call today, I've updated the draft procedural document with feedback from our Legal department. It's had quite some changes, but I think the end result is relatively clear and seems quite workable. I've highlighted the relevant section. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qLSVZ3wX_5Aibi1WVbtWlzirRs9RjolKzrUXrpo… Cheers Ant

1 0

Draft Minutes – CoC TF Twenty-Third Call
by Kjerstin Burdiek 06 Apr '22

06 Apr '22

Dear TF members, Here are the minutes from our last call. Cheers Kjerstin *** 31 March 16:30 (UTC+2) Attendees: Antony Gollan, Leo Vegoda Scribe: Kjerstin Burdiek Summary: The TF reviewed the draft document and made small structural and wording changes. They discussed whether the CoC Team would report on individual or community patterns of behaviour and determined that it would share statistical data about community behaviours while maintaining private records of individual behaviours to inform its decision-making in investigations. The TF considered how the CoC Team would maintain these records. It was decided to split breaches into minor and major, with a 12-month period of holding records for the former and a 24-month period for the latter. Ongoing consequences, such as permanent bans, would necessitate keeping some records indefinitely. The TF decided to consult with Athina to ensure this plan was in accordance with laws about data protection. The TF also decided that the RIPE NCC should determine the database the CoC Team would use for its records. After reviewing the draft, the TF looked at the blog post Leo had drafted to announce the process document to the community. They discussed the questions they would ask the community for feedback on the authority of the CoC Team and the extent of record-keeping required. Finally, the TF considered the next steps. They decided to share the process document with the community in about a week and to then give the community three weeks to review it. They would also plan a BoF session at RIPE 84 to update the community on the feedback received and inform them about the CoC Team recruitment and training process. 1. Minutes There were no changes to the minutes, with a hold on approval until more TF members were available to review them. 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. - (Ongoing) TF to think about the appropriate level of process to allow further improvements to the CoC. This action remained ongoing. -Athina to review the language on appeals and propose an amendment if needed. Leo marked this action as complete. -RIPE NCC to update the working draft so it makes consistent use of simple language. Leo marked this action as complete. -Leo to write blog post about the published draft for the community to review and offer feedback on. Leo marked this action as complete. He had sent the blog post to the RIPE Labs editor in preparation to publish it. Antony said he had reviewed the blog post and made some edits that the TF could discuss later in the call. 4. Draft Process Document Antony shared the updated draft document. The TF discussed wording changes in the section on how the CoC Team related to the RIPE community and in the section on the requirement to inform the RIPE Chair Team of decisions. Antony said he had spoken to the RIPE Chair and confirmed that the CoC Team did not need to inform the Chair Team in all cases before enacting a decision, only in cases of serious breaches with heavier consequences. Leo agreed this was a better approach to avoid excessive reporting. Antony asked whether the CoC Team’s records should describe the patterns of behaviour of individuals or of the community as a whole. Leo said the document referred to individual patterns of behaviour but that it would be important to identify community patterns of behaviour as well. The TF should note in the document that records of individual patterns of behaviour would only be kept by the CoC investigation team and would not be shared with the community. Antony shared the section referring to the RIPE NCC maintaining statistics about individual patterns of behaviour. He noted that the language there might lead readers to think the RIPE NCC would examine all of its data on an individual during report investigations, when in fact only report-related information would be consulted. Leo said the TF needed to define the different ways the CoC Team would use the data it collected. Statistics on community patterns of behaviour would be shared with the community. On the other hand, records of individual patterns of behaviour would be used only by the CoC Team to help them decide on appropriate consequences for breaches. The TF then discussed some wording and structural changes in this section and in the section about the legality of recording reports. Antony said they needed to reference specific laws when explaining how long the CoC Team could maintain records. In particular, it would be necessary to establish what the purpose of these records were to follow legal guidelines. This purpose could be that the CoC Team needed records for as long as it took to enforce consequences, which could be ongoing in the case of bans from meetings and mailing lists. Leo suggested splitting breaches into categories for minor and major, with records held for 12 months for the former and 24 months for the latter. The TF should get Athina’s thoughts on this as well. Antony said the TF should add that the CoC Team could maintain longer records when consequences would exceed 24 months, as in the case of permanent bans. The TF still needed to determine what the CoC Team should do if the subject of a report requested the deletion of their personal data. Leo said this would be for the RIPE NCC, as the legal record holder, to determine. The RIPE NCC also needed to determine what database system the CoC Team would use. Antony said the RIPE NCC already had a system in place that could be used for this. 5. Blog Post Leo noted that his draft blog post summarised the process document. In addition, it placed some specific actions on the community while also inviting general feedback. The specific actions were asking the community to give their feedback about the extent of the authority of the CoC Team and the extent of the record-keeping required. There was also an implicit question about how much information would need to be disclosed. The TF discussed the best structure for the blog post and decided to consult with Athina on this, particularly in regard to the actions placed on the community. 6. Review Period Leo suggested giving the community a three-week review period for the document ahead of RIPE 84. Antony asked if clear consensus would be required at the end of this period. Leo said the TF would need to decide after the review period whether there was overall support for the process document or whether they would need to revise it. There would not be time before RIPE 84 to present a revised version, so they could just give an update at RIPE 84. The TF discussed how to present this update at RIPE 84, whether asking Mirjam to share some slides at the meeting or holding a BoF session. Antony said they should decide based on community feedback. If there was a lot of discussion about the document, it would merit a BoF session. Leo said the hybrid nature of the RIPE Meeting would make adding an ad hoc BoF session difficult. Antony agreed but noted there was still space on the RIPE 84 agenda. Leo said he wanted to tell the community at RIPE 84 about the CoC Team’s recruitment process, which would be based on the arbiters’ recruitment process, and about the CoC Team training procedure. Antony said that, in that case, a BoF session would make sense. The TF could discuss those items as well as add more content as needed. Leo said he would draft a proposal for a BoF to send to Antony and Athina. The TF discussed how to structure the BoF session. They decided that Athina could give a talk about the recruitment process and Antony could talk about the training. Then they would describe the CoC Team’s composition and duties and have a community discussion afterward. Antony would prepare the presentation materials. 7. Next Steps Antony noted that the TF should publish the draft process document as soon as possible, even if the legal review was still in progress. Leo agreed that the TF should publish the process document by the end of the following week so the community would have three weeks to review it. The TF could also tell the community about the planned BoF session. 8. AOB Antony said he would look into the consulting group Brian had mentioned last week for CoC Team training. Leo said this would be good, as that group looked more community-focused and might be a better fit than the law firm Antony had originally found. 9. Actions -Athina to review the draft in regard to record-keeping. -Leo to draft a proposal for a BoF at RIPE 84.

1 0

CoC Process and Next Steps
by Leo Vegoda 06 Apr '22

06 Apr '22

Hi, Antony, Kjerstin, and I met earlier today. These are some lightweight notes. Kjerstin will provide proper minutes later. We reviewed the updated draft process. The key change in this is that only significant breaches of the Code of Conduct will be reported to the RIPE Chair Team and the RIPE NCC before actions are taken. We made some changes to the section dealing with data during the meeting. We were advised that we cannot just make a statement that the record system will comply with the law. We need to state how long the RIPE NCC will keep records for. The update we made recognises minor and major breaches of the Code of Conduct. The records system will always keep data that does not identify individuals to allow trend analysis. It will keep information identifying an individual for a minor breach for 12 months. It will keep information identifying an individual for a major breach for 24 months. If a person is permanently barred from attending RIPE events or posting to RIPE lists, it will need to keep information on them indefinitely. Otherwise, that action could not be implemented. We intend to publish the updated draft as soon as possible. We would like the RIPE NCC's legal team to review it before publishing but if that is not possible, we plan to publish next week. We have a blog post drafted. It presents a fairly concise summary, asks two questions, and asks the community to provide any feedback they have. We'd like to have a three week comment period on the draft. We agreed that it made sense to propose a Code of Conduct BoF for RIPE 84. The focus in the proposal to the RIPE Programme Committee will be: 1. Present the proposed Code of Conduct Team recruitment process, based on the one used for the Arbiters 2. Present the Code of Conduct Team training plans and estimated time commitment 3. Discussion - which could include discussion on the process document if significant issues are raised on the RIPE Discussion List I will draft a proposal for the BoF and circulate it. Kind regards, Leo

4 8

Draft agenda for this week's meeting
by Leo Vegoda 05 Apr '22

05 Apr '22

Hi, Here is a draft agenda for Thursday's meeting. The goal is to make final changes to the document and blog post asking questions. 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 review the language on appeals and propose an amendment if needed. - RIPE NCC to update the working draft so it makes consistent use of simple language. - Leo to draft a blog post 5 mins Status Record retention All Decide on periods for minor/major breaches 10 mins Decision Blog post All Adjust blog post to include question about record retention 10 mins Document BoF All Adjust BoF proposal 10 mins Decision AOB All Any other business 5 mins - Actions NCC Review actions agreed during the meeting 5 mins Action list

1 0

Updated Process Document (v5)
by Antony Gollan 03 Apr '22

03 Apr '22

Dear TF members, I've got an updated v5 of the Process Document here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MSW2d-dEmZT8KyczTGnEo2Q8Uw3j-dex3I6BbTS… There is one hiccup. Before we publish, we will need to be a little more specific under "6. Evaluation is Recorded" in terms of how long we will store personal data for. After talking with Athina, we thought it might be best for the TF to propose some time frames and reasons on the call. Legal can then check if this is works and we should be able to develop a paragraph of legalese to cover any GDPR-related aspects in pretty short order. Cheers Ant

2 1

Draft proposal for Code of Conduct BoF at RIPE 84
by Leo Vegoda 01 Apr '22

01 Apr '22

Hi, I have drafted a proposal for a Code of Conduct BoF at RIPE 84 in Berlin. I'd like to focus it on recruiting volunteers for the Code of Conduct Team. That means explaining the recruitment process, the training, anticipated time commitment etc... We could change direction if the feedback to draft process document makes that necessary. What needs to change in this draft? Thanks, Leo 8<----- START DRAFT ----->8 This BoF will follow the discussion on the draft Code of Conduct Process. The precise design of the BoF will depend on the community's feedback on the draft. We plan to present three things: 1. A summary of the discussion and decisions made based on it. 2. The proposed recruitment process for the Code of Conduct Team, based on the RIPE NCC Arbiters process. 3. The planned training for the team. We'll explain: - The options evaluated - The organisation we'd like to use, and - The time commitment. The session will conclude with a discussion that will guide the TF's next steps. 8<----- END DRAFT ----->8

2 2

Draft Minutes – CoC TF Twenty-Second Call
by Kjerstin Burdiek 30 Mar '22

30 Mar '22

Dear TF members, Here are the minutes from our last call. Cheers Kjerstin *** 24 March 16:30 (UTC+1) Attendees: Antony Gollan, Brian Nisbet, Leo Vegoda Scribe: Kjerstin Burdiek Summary: The TF reviewed the latest draft of the CoC process document. They made some changes to the wording but found the document overall satisfactory to share as a draft for community comments. They were particularly seeking feedback about whether the CoC Team or the RIPE Chair Team should have final authority when enacting serious consequences and about how detailed the records of the CoC Team’s investigations should be. Following up on the actions of the previous meeting, Antony shared the option he had found for CoC Team training. There was a law firm that specialised in CoC-related training that could offer in-person or virtual training and even onsite training at RIPE Meetings. The TF decided to look further into this company but to still consider other options as well. Additionally, Antony shared the plan he had drafted for a CoC awareness campaign for the community. The TF noted that they should implement some of his ideas if there was time but should focus on publishing the process document ahead of RIPE 84. At the RIPE Meeting, the TF would also ask WG Chairs and the RIPE Chair Team to make participants aware of the new CoC so everyone would feel more welcome in the community and more comfortable participating. The TF concluded the meeting by resolving to give all TF members a week to review the document on the list before publishing it as a draft for the community. 1. Minutes The minutes from the last meeting were approved, with one change via email from Athina to revise the language in the response to the third action item. Her amended text was, “This was done. Athina said that she proposed not to imitate the legal system of appeals as it was highly complex and not fit for the purposes of a CoC. The TF should instead just note that appeals could be filed for any aspect of a case and would then be subject to review by different members of the CoC Team. Based on this logic, she and Antony amended the language in the draft”. 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. - (Ongoing) TF to think about the appropriate level of process to allow further improvements to the CoC. This action remained ongoing. -The RIPE NCC to revise the document’s wording and to make a corresponding diagram. This action remained ongoing. -The RIPE NCC to plan an awareness campaign for the RIPE community that explains the purpose of the CoC and how to make use of it. This action remained ongoing. -The TF and the RIPE Chair Team to determine whether the CoC Team or the RIPE Chair would be responsible for deciding on serious consequences for severe CoC breaches. This action remained ongoing. 4. Feedback on Updated Draft Document Antony shared the updated document. Leo noted that when publishing the draft for comments, the TF should acknowledge they had used Mozilla and Python as inspirations for the draft. Antony agreed to add this. He then explained the changes in the introduction and the section on the relationship between the CoC Team and the RIPE Chair, which included an updated description about the final authority of the CoC Team. Leo noted that there had been a discussion on the list about when CoC decisions would need to be reviewed by a higher authority. The decision was that enforcing serious consequences required the CoC Team to give notice to the RIPE Chair and the RIPE NCC. Antony noted that the RIPE NCC member on the CoC Team could also speak to a RIPE NCC manager in such a case. Brian said the key point was to have communication between the different parties. The community could give feedback on specific mechanisms for this. Leo agreed that they should wait to hear community feedback on this section. The TF then discussed the section on how the CoC Team would handle reports. Brian noted that while the goal was for a report to be received by the on-duty Team member, it was also possible that another Team member might see it. Leo agreed that a report might be received by any Team member who was available. The TF also discussed what word to use for the outcome of the CoC Team’s investigation and settled on the word “decision”. In the section on outcomes of reports, Antony said he would need to get Athina’s input on how to record the CoC Team’s decisions. Leo said the system for recording these decisions was up to the RIPE NCC, although the TF could also consider the community’s feedback about record-keeping. The TF discussed the wording here and considered how public these records would need to be to ensure the safety of community members from repeat offenders while still protecting privacy. Brian said it was important to track repeated offences in some way and that they could look to other communities like Python and Mozilla for how they handled this. The group then discussed the wording in the sections on potential consequences and loss of office. Leo noted that while the TF members present at the meeting were happy with the document, they also needed the input of the rest of the group. The TF should therefore publish the document to the list for one week, with a note that they were seeking community input about the decision-making authority of the CoC Team and the extent of record-keeping required. The TF would also note that this was intended as a basic process document, and that in practice the CoC Team would rely on their own judgments as well while investigating reports. The TF discussed whether to add a consequence for removing someone from the venue of a meeting. They decided this was not feasible, as different venues would have different policies for removing guests. 5. Training for CoC Team Antony shared the law firm he had looked into for training. The firm specialised in developing CoC team training programmes, and it was available for both in-person and virtual training sessions. Members of the firm could also attend RIPE Meetings to offer training on an ongoing basis. If needed, the firm was also available to do a third-party assessment for CoC breaches. Brian said he would look into the firm and shared another consulting group as an option for conducting the training. Leo asked for more information about the process so he could share the details at RIPE 84. This would make volunteers more likely to sign up for the CoC Team since they would know what the training process entailed. Antony said the firm’s process varied, but generally the training ranged from a half a day to two days. The training would give CoC Team members practise responding to various kinds of incidents and feedback for improving their responses. Leo said this time frame sounded reasonable. Brian agreed but encouraged the TF to continue considering other training options. 6. CoC ‘Awareness’ for RIPE Meeting Leo praised the CoC awareness plan Antony had prepared. He suggested mentioning the CoC in the meeting welcome and at the start of every session. The TF could also look into expanding the awareness campaign after RIPE 84. The TF discussed which actions for raising awareness could be ready for the RIPE Meeting. One viable option could be making an informative video. Infographics could also be useful, but it was best to focus on content they were confident in that would not require later revision. Brian suggested infographics about how to make a report and how a report was handled but said the main goal was to have the process document itself ready for community comments by RIPE 84. The TF could then focus on awareness efforts over the summer. The TF should ask the PC and the WG Chairs to mention the new CoC in their sessions. The TF considered how to convey the CoC to the community and decided the focus should be on the CoC being a way to make everyone feel safer and more welcome. The TF also discussed how to make everyone in the community feel comfortable at the upcoming RIPE Meeting. The group would align with the RIPE Chair Team on how best to do so. Leo thanked Antony for putting the documents together and looking into the training. He said the TF would give the rest of the group a week to look through the updated process document before they published it for the community. 7. AOB Brian said he would not be present at the next meeting. 8. Actions -Leo to write blog post about the published draft for the community to review and offer feedback on.

1 0

Draft agenda for this Thursday's meeting
by Leo Vegoda 29 Mar '22

29 Mar '22

Hi, The key item on our agenda for this Thursday is to make any final changes needed in the draft process document and then approve it for publication. We'll also review the draft blog post and the questions it asks. Kind regards, Leo

1 0

(no subject)
by Leo Vegoda 28 Mar '22

28 Mar '22

Dear TF and RIPE Chair Team, Thank you all for a very interesting discussion earlier today. The action item we took away for us all to think over was the balance between the authority delegated to the team that performs the initial investigation in suggesting a consequence and oversight by people with broader responsibilities. Greater oversight at an earlier stage could reduce the options for escalation. In other words, what is the balance between judgement and process? The proposal below is intended as a straw man for discussion. I am not emotionally attached to it and won't be offended if I am told that the balance is wrong. My intention is for us to reach a shared understanding of why we should or should not draw the balance in a particular place. 8<---- START STRAW MAN PROPOSAL ----->8 The TF recognises that it does not have a body of experience for the team that will implement the Code of Conduct to draw on. While that body of experience is being developed, we favour adjusting the balance towards greater oversight of suggested consequences. We recognise that this could leave less opportunity for escalation. In essence, we favour taking more opportunities to get things right earlier on, especially when this is a new process. For example: The Code of Conduct Team is asked to investigate a report at a RIPE meeting. The sub-team investigating the report (two trained community members, plus one RIPE NCC support person) believes that the incident is sufficiently serious that the subject of the report should not be admitted to the remainder of the RIPE meeting. Because they feel the need to suggest such serious consequences they provide a summary of the incident and the suggested consequences to both the RIPE Chair and the RIPE NCC Managing Director. Either of those people is able to adjust the suggested consequences before implementation. 8<---- END STRAW MAN PROPOSAL ----->8 This straw man proposal is an implicit acknowledgement that we might want to adjust our processes as we gain more experience. The RIPE community is likely to suggest changes based on periodic experience reports. Please feel free to share your thoughts on this list or at our next scheduled meeting. Kind regards, Leo

3 9