There are some, quite separate, points I would like to make about the current draft Code of Conduct. Sorry it has taken me a bit of time since the last meeting. What some call “real life” sort of got in the way. But maybe this will contribute a little to some discussion before Berlin.
1) The level of churn when it comes to actual participation in RIPE meetings is significant.
Around 25%, and some times more, attendees identify as first-timers. We cannot expect those people to have read any agreed CoC. We might also have reasonable doubts about regulars. Many of us have seen that people in the wider technical Internet community, while quite capable of travelling half-way round the world and even getting into the relevant WG session on time, still too often have not read the relevant Internet Drafts.
So do we have to tick-a-box on registration saying we are aware of the CoC? We know it is a waste of time asking if people have actually read the CoC. Just like any license agreement.
Do we need a the equivalent of the IETF ”Note well” slide that is sort of repeated during the week?
I am not sure how far this has to go. But I do feel that merely having a CoC somewhere on a website may not be enough.
2) The diversity angle.
I understand why this effort is coming from the Diversity TF. I have learned things from reading the mail archive. And that has also made me reevaluate incidents from the past. There were things that happened in Madrid in particular that I did not appreciate. I therefore understand the desire to have a formalised CoC.
At the same time I do not see why a person needs to be associated with a “minority”, either in terms of self-identification or in terms of some community perception, so that they can be afforded the protections of such a CoC. Your ethnicity or gender or sexual orientation or whatever cannot be a necessary starting point before showing that something nasty happened. The CoC has to be inclusive. It ought not be about protecting those people on that side of the room from those on the other side of the room.
There are two important paragraphs in the current draft that refer to behaviour that will not be tolerated. To be clear: the two paragraphs start with “Any behaviour or actions…”.
I suggest that the order of those two paragraphs be reversed.
3) The process.
A few points.
** There is mention of requiring a “public apology”. While that may be useful if the behaviour was “public” it may not always be so. An apology to the person concerned, in the presence of CoC Team members, may sometimes be more appropriate. Or even an apology in front of the group that witnessed the incident(s).
** I think the use of the word “immediately” - “Participants are expected to comply “immediately….” - may be a little excessive, too severe a constraint. By that point a conversation is underway. We should not unduly curtail that conversation.
** There is mention of contacting the CoC Team by mail and there is also mention of records being kept. None of this ought to be permanent.
I am fully aware that once certain items are out there it is nigh on impossible to delete them. But NCC cannot hold records of accusations, accusations which may not even be followed-up for whatever reason, forever. Even if an incident is reported and processed and there is a satisfactory conclusion then that story has to become irrelevant at some stage. In addition maintaining a permanent record may mean a permanent liability.
I would naturally initially defer to the NCC lawyers for words to deal with this.
Gordon
