Hi Cynthia, This message is going to Cynthia and the list, which is publicly archived. On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 9:19 AM Cynthia Revström <me@cynthia.re> wrote: [...]

...

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?

Yes, this looks like a typo. I think we should have a new bullet starting with the word "Publicly"

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.

As the process needed more feedback before we ask the RIPE Chair to decide, it's definitely not too late. Thank you for making the time to discuss this with me on a call, earlier today. Among other things we discussed the balance between the authority delegated to the Team and the robustness of the escalation path. When authority is delegated to the Team making the initial decision because the RIPE Chair has to be involved to ratify the Team's suggested consequences the only people left to review the case are Team members not involved in the initial decision. One approach we discussed was to require the most serious consequences only be applied by the investigating Team if they are unanimous. But this approach suggests that a lower standard is acceptable for less consequential cases, which doesn't seem right. Also, this process is not a set of detailed operational procedures - so defining one element could constrain the Team in developing the operational procedures that work best. I believe we agreed that the community might need to gain some experience on what works. Our next draft might add a requirement that the Code of Conduct Team produce a report that includes recommendations for improvements after two years. This is something we discussed at our first BoF and should probably include in an update to the published draft. If we make the requirement for a review after two years explicit then we could adjust the process to help with learning. Kind regards, Leo