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
Hi, I sent an e-mail on a Friday. I did my best on the actual content and therefore forgot to give it a subject line. Sorry about that. I hope that now it has a subject it is more likely to show up in your inboxes. Kind regards, Leo 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?
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
-- coc-tf mailing list coc-tf@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/coc-tf
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
Hi, Thanks for the input on the straw man proposal I shared last week. I have an updated straw man proposal below. I have used capital letters as per BCP 14 to reduce ambiguity. This updated straw man proposal needs more work. My updated text mentions reporting requirements but it does not say what must be done with the reports to the RIPE Chair and RIPE NCC MD. It literally asks what we should recommend about patterns of behaviour. Please make suggestions! Similarly, while we've discussed a process for recruiting volunteers, this straw man proposal does not have anything about how to handle situations in which the Code of Conduct Team gets things wrong beyond correcting them for the person who requests the escalation. What do we do if a person on the Code of Conduct Team handles cases poorly? Similarly, while an escalation request is always allowed, are we happy to allow the next step on the escalation path to refuse to consider the escalation? Once we close in on what we want we'll need to improve the language, which I think is a bit hard to parse at the moment. My apologies for that. Thank you for feedback, Leo 8<---- START UPDATED STRAW MAN PROPOSAL ----->8 The TF recognises the need to balance goals when evaluating Code of Conduct reports. This is similar to how the RIPE community balances competing goals for the allocation and registration of Internet Number Resources. Sometimes we must rebalance these goals. We need to do the same thing when it comes to the implementation of our Code of Conduct published as ripe-766. That is why we propose that the implementation should be reviewed after one year and then every two years: Key factors to consider include: - Can we implement the Code of Conduct in a way that sustains participation in the RIPE community? - Can we recruit volunteers to serve on the Code of Conduct Team? - How confident must the RIPE community be in the systems used to report incidents and record investigations? - How do we want to link the medium of the incident with the consequences? For instance, could the Code of Conduct Team suggest barring someone from attending a RIPE meeting for posts to a mailing list? - How can the RIPE community provide oversight of the Code of Conduct Team while maximising confidentiality and enabling an escalation process? - Given the community's resources, what is the right balance between oversight and process? The balance we suggest in the first year of implementation includes the following. Some of these recommendations will need to be adjusted after the first year, as the Code of Conduct Team builds experience. - Team members MUST recuse themselves if they have a conflict of interest, such as a business or family relationship with one of the people involved in the reported incident. - When an incident takes place at an event, the Code of Conduct Team CANNOT suggest excluding the subject of the report from participating in the RIPE community after the conclusion of the event.[0] - When an incident takes place over the Internet, the Code of Conduct Team CANNOT suggest excluding the subject of the report from participating in the RIPE community for more than one month. - The RIPE NCC person supporting the Code of Conduct Team MUST provide the Code of Conduct Team, the RIPE Chair, and RIPE NCC MD a statistical summary of reports at the end of each calendar quarter and shortly after the conclusion of any RIPE event. - The statistical report MUST identify patterns of behaviour by an individual [AND THEN WHAT?] - The RIPE Chair MUST publish a statistical and thematic report as a RIPE document each year and MUST publicise the report to the RIPE community. - The RIPE NCC person supporting the Code of Conduct Team MUST provide both the RIPE Chair and RIPE NCC MD a case summary of any report that resulted in the exclusion of a person from an Internet service (e.g. mailing list posting rights removed) for more than one week, or exclusion from the remainder of a RIPE event. - People [THIS MEANS ANYONE AND EVERYONE] involved in a reported incident MAY escalate the case to the remainder of the Code of Conduct Team (barring those who recuse themselves for a conflict of interest). - The broader Code of Conduct Team MAY review the facts of the report, the suggested consequences, and the process executed by the initial team. - People involved in a reported incident MAY have that decision reviewed by the RIPE Chair Team[1] and the RIPE NCC MD. - While people involved in a reported incident MAY escalate a case, there is no requirement for the escalation request to be accepted. Example 1: The Code of Conduct Team is asked to investigate an incident at a RIPE meeting. The sub-team investigating the report (two trained community members, plus one RIPE NCC support person) suggests that the subject of the report should be excluded from the rest of the RIPE meeting. These suggested consequences will be included in a quarterly statistical report and a summary of the event will be provided to the RIPE Chair and RIPE NCC MD. Anyone involved in the reported incident MAY escalate the case to the rest of the Code of Conduct Team and request a reevaluation of the aspect they disagree with. Question for the TF: should the suggested consequences be implemented while an escalation is underway, or should implementation be deferred until after the conclusion of the escalation process? Example 2: The Code of Conduct Team is asked to investigate repeated ad hominem attacks made on a mailing list. The sub-team investigating the report (two trained community members, plus one RIPE NCC support person) suggests that A) the postings should be removed from the archive and B) the poster should be barred from posting on that list for a calendar month. These suggested consequences will be included in a quarterly statistical report. Both the poster and the subject of the ad-hominem attack MAY escalate the case to the rest of the Code of Conduct Team and request a reevaluation of the aspect they disagree with. [0] Presumably, the RIPE NCC as the legal entity running events and providing the community with Internet services could refuse to sell meeting tickets or accept e-mail from someone in some situations. [1] If this is the RIPE Chair Team the panel can be an odd number and the balance can be held by the RIPE community. 8<---- END UPDATED STRAW MAN PROPOSAL ----->8 On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 4:07 AM Niall O'Reilly <niall.oreilly@ucd.ie> wrote:
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
Dear TF, I'd like to encourage you to comment on this updated straw man proposal. Please share your thoughts on what is right and where we should make improvements or fill gaps. Thanks, Leo On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 2:39 PM Leo Vegoda <leo@vegoda.org> wrote:
Hi,
Thanks for the input on the straw man proposal I shared last week. I have an updated straw man proposal below.
I have used capital letters as per BCP 14 to reduce ambiguity.
This updated straw man proposal needs more work.
My updated text mentions reporting requirements but it does not say what must be done with the reports to the RIPE Chair and RIPE NCC MD. It literally asks what we should recommend about patterns of behaviour. Please make suggestions!
Similarly, while we've discussed a process for recruiting volunteers, this straw man proposal does not have anything about how to handle situations in which the Code of Conduct Team gets things wrong beyond correcting them for the person who requests the escalation. What do we do if a person on the Code of Conduct Team handles cases poorly? Similarly, while an escalation request is always allowed, are we happy to allow the next step on the escalation path to refuse to consider the escalation?
Once we close in on what we want we'll need to improve the language, which I think is a bit hard to parse at the moment. My apologies for that.
Thank you for feedback,
Leo
8<---- START UPDATED STRAW MAN PROPOSAL ----->8
The TF recognises the need to balance goals when evaluating Code of Conduct reports. This is similar to how the RIPE community balances competing goals for the allocation and registration of Internet Number Resources. Sometimes we must rebalance these goals. We need to do the same thing when it comes to the implementation of our Code of Conduct published as ripe-766. That is why we propose that the implementation should be reviewed after one year and then every two years:
Key factors to consider include:
- Can we implement the Code of Conduct in a way that sustains participation in the RIPE community? - Can we recruit volunteers to serve on the Code of Conduct Team? - How confident must the RIPE community be in the systems used to report incidents and record investigations? - How do we want to link the medium of the incident with the consequences? For instance, could the Code of Conduct Team suggest barring someone from attending a RIPE meeting for posts to a mailing list? - How can the RIPE community provide oversight of the Code of Conduct Team while maximising confidentiality and enabling an escalation process? - Given the community's resources, what is the right balance between oversight and process?
The balance we suggest in the first year of implementation includes the following. Some of these recommendations will need to be adjusted after the first year, as the Code of Conduct Team builds experience.
- Team members MUST recuse themselves if they have a conflict of interest, such as a business or family relationship with one of the people involved in the reported incident. - When an incident takes place at an event, the Code of Conduct Team CANNOT suggest excluding the subject of the report from participating in the RIPE community after the conclusion of the event.[0] - When an incident takes place over the Internet, the Code of Conduct Team CANNOT suggest excluding the subject of the report from participating in the RIPE community for more than one month. - The RIPE NCC person supporting the Code of Conduct Team MUST provide the Code of Conduct Team, the RIPE Chair, and RIPE NCC MD a statistical summary of reports at the end of each calendar quarter and shortly after the conclusion of any RIPE event. - The statistical report MUST identify patterns of behaviour by an individual [AND THEN WHAT?] - The RIPE Chair MUST publish a statistical and thematic report as a RIPE document each year and MUST publicise the report to the RIPE community. - The RIPE NCC person supporting the Code of Conduct Team MUST provide both the RIPE Chair and RIPE NCC MD a case summary of any report that resulted in the exclusion of a person from an Internet service (e.g. mailing list posting rights removed) for more than one week, or exclusion from the remainder of a RIPE event. - People [THIS MEANS ANYONE AND EVERYONE] involved in a reported incident MAY escalate the case to the remainder of the Code of Conduct Team (barring those who recuse themselves for a conflict of interest). - The broader Code of Conduct Team MAY review the facts of the report, the suggested consequences, and the process executed by the initial team. - People involved in a reported incident MAY have that decision reviewed by the RIPE Chair Team[1] and the RIPE NCC MD. - While people involved in a reported incident MAY escalate a case, there is no requirement for the escalation request to be accepted.
Example 1: The Code of Conduct Team is asked to investigate an incident at a RIPE meeting. The sub-team investigating the report (two trained community members, plus one RIPE NCC support person) suggests that the subject of the report should be excluded from the rest of the RIPE meeting.
These suggested consequences will be included in a quarterly statistical report and a summary of the event will be provided to the RIPE Chair and RIPE NCC MD.
Anyone involved in the reported incident MAY escalate the case to the rest of the Code of Conduct Team and request a reevaluation of the aspect they disagree with.
Question for the TF: should the suggested consequences be implemented while an escalation is underway, or should implementation be deferred until after the conclusion of the escalation process?
Example 2: The Code of Conduct Team is asked to investigate repeated ad hominem attacks made on a mailing list. The sub-team investigating the report (two trained community members, plus one RIPE NCC support person) suggests that A) the postings should be removed from the archive and B) the poster should be barred from posting on that list for a calendar month.
These suggested consequences will be included in a quarterly statistical report.
Both the poster and the subject of the ad-hominem attack MAY escalate the case to the rest of the Code of Conduct Team and request a reevaluation of the aspect they disagree with.
[0] Presumably, the RIPE NCC as the legal entity running events and providing the community with Internet services could refuse to sell meeting tickets or accept e-mail from someone in some situations. [1] If this is the RIPE Chair Team the panel can be an odd number and the balance can be held by the RIPE community.
8<---- END UPDATED STRAW MAN PROPOSAL ----->8
On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 4:07 AM Niall O'Reilly <niall.oreilly@ucd.ie> wrote:
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
On 16 Feb 2022, at 22:39, Leo Vegoda wrote:
- When an incident takes place at an event, the Code of Conduct Team CANNOT suggest excluding the subject of the report from participating in the RIPE community after the conclusion of the event.[0] - When an incident takes place over the Internet, the Code of Conduct Team CANNOT suggest excluding the subject of the report from participating in the RIPE community for more than one month.
Leo, I’m sorry for the delay in following up on the discussion Mirjam and I had with you on Wednesday. We’ve had an extended holiday weekend here in Ireland. I think it’s appropriate not to constrain what the Code-of-Conduct Team may SUGGEST, but rather to limit the severity of sanctions which are to be applied without confirmation by a higher authority. I hope this helps, and isn’t too terse or abstract. All the best, Niall
Hi, On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 3:54 AM Niall O'Reilly <niall.oreilly@ucd.ie> wrote:
On 16 Feb 2022, at 22:39, Leo Vegoda wrote:
- When an incident takes place at an event, the Code of Conduct Team CANNOT suggest excluding the subject of the report from participating in the RIPE community after the conclusion of the event.[0] - When an incident takes place over the Internet, the Code of Conduct Team CANNOT suggest excluding the subject of the report from participating in the RIPE community for more than one month.
Leo, I’m sorry for the delay in following up on the discussion Mirjam and I had with you on Wednesday. We’ve had an extended holiday weekend here in Ireland.
I think it’s appropriate not to constrain what the Code-of-Conduct Team may SUGGEST, but rather to limit the severity of sanctions which are to be applied without confirmation by a higher authority.
I hope this helps, and isn’t too terse or abstract.
This is helpful. At last week's meeting we made progress on the process document. The approach now is that the CoC Team will inform the RIPE Chair and RIPE NCC of a decision before it's implemented. We also agreed to publish a blog post with some specific questions in it, so the community is informed about the choices being made. I have drafted a blog post, which is with the RIPE Labs team. It has a section on specific questions: " We would like your thoughts on the authority to delegate to the Code of Conduct Team. " How much responsibility should we delegate to the Code of Conduct Team? Do you want a threshold beyond which their decisions become advisory? " The RIPE NCC will always ensure the record keeping system meets all legal requirements. But do you want it to be able to track a pattern of behaviour that generates multiple reports?" I am hoping we'll be able to publish the draft and blog post at the start of April. Kind regards, Leo
Leo, Thanks for this. As mentioned I can't make the meeting on the 25th, unfortunately. I completely acknowledge that this is a strawman, but it gives us a good base. I think it's important that neither the RIPE Chair nor the NCC MD would be able to simply say "No, that deserves a lower sanction or none at all" which could be what's proposed here. I do believe that there is a category of determination (such as someone being ejected from the current and/or future RIPE meetings) that should be brought to them. However that is not for their agreement, per se. It is for their awareness and input. To use a sports analogy, when a referee in rugby checks a decision with the TV match official, that second person needs to present compelling evidence to overturn an on-field decision. They cannot merely say they disagree. So similarly the Chair or MD would need to be very clear in why the determination would be changed. Equally, in order to avoid either the appearance or actuality of a power imbalance/pressure being applied, the principles and reasoning behind this would have to be made very clear, at least within the CoC Team, if that makes sense? The balance here, as you set out, is very delicate and certainly we need to avoid both the appearance and actuality of the Chair or MD being able to "save" or "condemn" people at will, because, well, that would be bad. One consideration in all of this is that the RIPE Community both chooses and can recall the RIPE Chair, and while that community has an influence on the MD (membership via the Board etc.) it does not choose that person, nor can they remove them. I think it will be very hard to write all of this down in specific process, tbh, but trust in the CoC is the vital thing. I hope this helps, Brian Brian Nisbet (he/him) Service Operations Manager HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland +35316609040 brian.nisbet@heanet.ie www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270 ________________________________ From: coc-tf <coc-tf-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of Leo Vegoda <leo@vegoda.org> Sent: Friday 11 February 2022 18:13 To: coc-tf@ripe.net <coc-tf@ripe.net> Subject: [coc-tf] (no subject) CAUTION[External]: This email originated from outside of the organisation. Do not click on links or open the attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe. 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 -- coc-tf mailing list coc-tf@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/coc-tf
Hi Brian, Thanks for sharing your feedback. I agree that writing down the details would be hard to do. Should we instead try to avoid the details but write down what we hope oversight by the RIPE Chair and/or RIPE NCC MD would achieve? The Code of Conduct document says: "The RIPE community expects all participants to use good sense and not to view guidelines for human behaviour in the same way as technical documentation." If we can describe the goal of the oversight instead of how it would be carried out, we could leave it to the good sense of those providing oversight to accomplish those goals. What do you think? Thanks, Leo On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 6:01 AM Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet@heanet.ie> wrote:
Leo,
Thanks for this. As mentioned I can't make the meeting on the 25th, unfortunately.
I completely acknowledge that this is a strawman, but it gives us a good base.
I think it's important that neither the RIPE Chair nor the NCC MD would be able to simply say "No, that deserves a lower sanction or none at all" which could be what's proposed here. I do believe that there is a category of determination (such as someone being ejected from the current and/or future RIPE meetings) that should be brought to them. However that is not for their agreement, per se. It is for their awareness and input.
To use a sports analogy, when a referee in rugby checks a decision with the TV match official, that second person needs to present compelling evidence to overturn an on-field decision. They cannot merely say they disagree. So similarly the Chair or MD would need to be very clear in why the determination would be changed.
Equally, in order to avoid either the appearance or actuality of a power imbalance/pressure being applied, the principles and reasoning behind this would have to be made very clear, at least within the CoC Team, if that makes sense?
The balance here, as you set out, is very delicate and certainly we need to avoid both the appearance and actuality of the Chair or MD being able to "save" or "condemn" people at will, because, well, that would be bad.
One consideration in all of this is that the RIPE Community both chooses and can recall the RIPE Chair, and while that community has an influence on the MD (membership via the Board etc.) it does not choose that person, nor can they remove them.
I think it will be very hard to write all of this down in specific process, tbh, but trust in the CoC is the vital thing.
I hope this helps,
Brian
Brian Nisbet (he/him)
Service Operations Manager
HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network
1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland
+35316609040 brian.nisbet@heanet.ie www.heanet.ie
Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270
________________________________ From: coc-tf <coc-tf-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of Leo Vegoda <leo@vegoda.org> Sent: Friday 11 February 2022 18:13 To: coc-tf@ripe.net <coc-tf@ripe.net> Subject: [coc-tf] (no subject)
CAUTION[External]: This email originated from outside of the organisation. Do not click on links or open the attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe.
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
-- coc-tf mailing list coc-tf@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/coc-tf -- coc-tf mailing list coc-tf@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/coc-tf
Leo, That may well be a good approach. I think Niall has some useful ideas in his email also, trying to see if we can sensibly set some parameters. But I think a description of what we're hoping to achieve with the awareness & involvement would be good. Brian Brian Nisbet (he/him) Service Operations Manager HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland +35316609040 brian.nisbet@heanet.ie www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270 ________________________________ From: Leo Vegoda <leo@vegoda.org> Sent: Tuesday 15 February 2022 15:02 To: Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet@heanet.ie> Cc: coc-tf@ripe.net <coc-tf@ripe.net>; chair-team@ripe.net <chair-team@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [coc-tf] (no subject) CAUTION[External]: This email originated from outside of the organisation. Do not click on links or open the attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Brian, Thanks for sharing your feedback. I agree that writing down the details would be hard to do. Should we instead try to avoid the details but write down what we hope oversight by the RIPE Chair and/or RIPE NCC MD would achieve? The Code of Conduct document says: "The RIPE community expects all participants to use good sense and not to view guidelines for human behaviour in the same way as technical documentation." If we can describe the goal of the oversight instead of how it would be carried out, we could leave it to the good sense of those providing oversight to accomplish those goals. What do you think? Thanks, Leo On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 6:01 AM Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet@heanet.ie> wrote:
Leo,
Thanks for this. As mentioned I can't make the meeting on the 25th, unfortunately.
I completely acknowledge that this is a strawman, but it gives us a good base.
I think it's important that neither the RIPE Chair nor the NCC MD would be able to simply say "No, that deserves a lower sanction or none at all" which could be what's proposed here. I do believe that there is a category of determination (such as someone being ejected from the current and/or future RIPE meetings) that should be brought to them. However that is not for their agreement, per se. It is for their awareness and input.
To use a sports analogy, when a referee in rugby checks a decision with the TV match official, that second person needs to present compelling evidence to overturn an on-field decision. They cannot merely say they disagree. So similarly the Chair or MD would need to be very clear in why the determination would be changed.
Equally, in order to avoid either the appearance or actuality of a power imbalance/pressure being applied, the principles and reasoning behind this would have to be made very clear, at least within the CoC Team, if that makes sense?
The balance here, as you set out, is very delicate and certainly we need to avoid both the appearance and actuality of the Chair or MD being able to "save" or "condemn" people at will, because, well, that would be bad.
One consideration in all of this is that the RIPE Community both chooses and can recall the RIPE Chair, and while that community has an influence on the MD (membership via the Board etc.) it does not choose that person, nor can they remove them.
I think it will be very hard to write all of this down in specific process, tbh, but trust in the CoC is the vital thing.
I hope this helps,
Brian
Brian Nisbet (he/him)
Service Operations Manager
HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network
1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland
+35316609040 brian.nisbet@heanet.ie www.heanet.ie<http://www.heanet.ie>
Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270
________________________________ From: coc-tf <coc-tf-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of Leo Vegoda <leo@vegoda.org> Sent: Friday 11 February 2022 18:13 To: coc-tf@ripe.net <coc-tf@ripe.net> Subject: [coc-tf] (no subject)
CAUTION[External]: This email originated from outside of the organisation. Do not click on links or open the attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe.
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
-- coc-tf mailing list coc-tf@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/coc-tf -- coc-tf mailing list coc-tf@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/coc-tf
participants (3)
-
Brian Nisbet -
Leo Vegoda -
Niall O'Reilly