Hi Antony,

On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 8:53 AM Antony Gollan <agollan@ripe.net> wrote:
Dear Leo, TF members,

Thank you for your email, this looks like a great starting point.

Athina and myself (both on this list) will be helping you from the RIPE
NCC's side. We were heavily involved in the impact analysis, so it
shouldn't take long for us to get up to speed here.

Excellent. I welcome you both.
 
 > The TF should rely on the RIPE NCC staff to produce a document
summarizing the unresolved issues drawn from the input sources.

We'll aim to have this ready by Friday (earlier if possible).

 > The RIPE NCC should provide a conferencing system / The RIPE NCC
should provide tooling to allow the TF members to share working
documents, comments and potential edits with each other in an efficient way.

Is the group happy using Zoom for video conferencing and Google
Docs/Sheets/Calendar for the rest, or would you like us to look at
alternatives? (i.e. if you'd rather avoid Google, we could maintain
document control on our end and integrate feedback into various master
documents).

I am personally happy with Google Docs. I don't have preferences for specific tools but would like to avoid exchanging documents by e-mail if that's possible because merging edits from multiple reviewers is generally painful.
 
 > There should be an initial meeting to:

I'll circulate a poll tomorrow with some options - assume we should aim
for mid-next week (after we've sent the initial materials)?

I agree that we should tentatively schedule our first meeting but we will also need to give everyone time to review the document you are preparing.
 
In the meantime, there are two issues that might be worth thinking about
while we prepare our summary (they'll likely feature near the top of our
document in any case):

1. How should the initial Code of Conduct document be structured in
terms of sections/sub-sections, and what should these sections be called?

You'll find the headings from the current draft below (I've added
numbering to differentiate between headings/sub-headings). I assume the
dashes after 4.1 are to differentiate between the actual CoC and the
latter sections, which might form the basis for the remaining two
documents this TF will produce.

However, it's not immediately clear which part of this first section
contains the "actual" code of conduct (I assume this is under 1.
Introduction, though maybe all of those sections collectively form the
CoC). There might also be elements not in the draft 3.0 version that
should be added to the updated CoC; possibly our summary will highlight
areas to discuss here.

2. Does the scope of the CoC need clarification?

I am developing a draft agenda for our first meeting and I will add these questions to it.

Thanks,

Leo