On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 10:14 AM Leo Vegoda leo@vegoda.org wrote:

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?

I think it would be useful to think about the problem along other “axes”
too, including:

• oversight (as mentioned in the action item);
• context (RIPE meeting, webinar, mailing list, …);
• documentation (case dossier);
• communication/notification;
• limits on the severity of the immediate sanction;
• possibility of recommending additional sanctions;
• protection of the appeal process.

My suggestion is to avoid oversight, as I feel it is likely both
to undermine the authority of the assessment team and
to compromise the appeal process. Besides, as Brian has pointed
out, it introduces the possibility of cronyism at a higher level
of authority.

I think the combination of (a) limiting the severity of sanction for
which the assessment team has summary competence and (b) allowing them
to recommend additional sanctions would allow both effective immediate
intervention and a means to deal appropriately with more egregious
offences.

For example, for an incident at a RIPE meeting, the severity of the
immediate sanction might be limited to exclusion from the remainder
of the meeting. On the other hand, lifetime exclusion would be a
sanction which the assessing team could only recommend.

I haven’t thought about appropriate matching between the context
of the incident and that of the applied sanction. In case of an
incident on a mailing list, should the sanction extend beyond that
mailing list? And conversely, for an incident at a RIPE meeting,
should mailing-list access be restricted or even denied?

In case it may be useful, and encouraged by Brian’s reference to
Rugby, here are links to the current edition of the document I
mentioned on Friday; the French edition, if you can read it, is
clearer on some points.

https://static.fie.org/uploads/26/131735-technical%20rules%20ang.pdf
https://static.fie.org/uploads/26/131727-Technique%20fra.pdf

In particular, article t.137 makes clear the distinction between
sanctions which a referee may impose immediately and those which
they must recommend to a higher authority.

I hope this helps a little.

Niall