March 2021 - diversity - mailman.ripe.net

Fwd: Impact analisys of the new Code of Conduct
by Hans Petter Holen 01 May '24

01 May '24

I have requested an impact analisys from the RIPE NCC as requested by the task force. -hph ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Hans Petter Holen <hph(a)oslo.net> Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2019 at 00:31 Subject: Impact analisys of the new Code of Conduct To: rna-exec(a)ripe.net Mailing List <rna-exec(a)ripe.net> Cc: Athina Fragkouli <athina.fragkouli(a)ripe.net> The diversity task force has published a draft of a new code of conduct (CoC). Before moving this forward I would like to request an impact assesment from the RIPE NCC for the community to understand if there is an impact on the RIPE NCC and if this impact can be accepted. https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/ripe-meetings/ripe-meeting-code-o… For the record, I would also like to point out that there is an existing code of conduct in place: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/ripe-meetings/ripe-meeting-code-o… The new code of conduct does however specify how the Trusted Contacts (now Code of Conduct team) is appointed and outlines in more details what actions can be taken. It can be argued that all theese actions can be taken allready, by the Trusted Contacts, RIPE Chair, PC and RIPE NCC meeting organisers today, but the new CoC makes this explicit. Yours sincerely, Hans Petter Holen RIPE Chair -- -- Hans Petter Holen Mobile +47 45 06 60 54 | hph(a)oslo.net | http://hph.oslo.net -- -- Hans Petter Holen Mobile +47 45 06 60 54 | hph(a)oslo.net | http://hph.oslo.net

3 2

Updated Draft RIPE Code of Conduct Published for Community Review
by Leo Vegoda 02 Apr '21

02 Apr '21

Dear RIPE community, An updated draft RIPE Code of Conduct (CoC) is now published for your review. As this is intended to cover all participation within RIPE, it applies to interactions over the Internet, mailing lists, as well as in-person at RIPE Meetings. You can find the document here: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-documents/other-documents/ripe-… This draft keeps most of the text in v3.0[1], which was developed by the RIPE Diversity TF. It also draws from CoCs that are in use in other communities, including the Python CoC[2]. The biggest change is that the updated draft covers scope and behaviour only. It doesn’t touch on process or the CoC Team – these aspects will be addressed in two separate documents that are still to come. Please review the draft and share any comments on the RIPE Discussion List by Friday, 2 April 2021. We welcome suggested changes, but if you don’t see problems with the draft then statements of support are also helpful. The RIPE Chair Team will evaluate your comments and determine whether there is consensus on this draft or additional work is needed. While we would prefer comments to be shared on the RIPE Discussion List, we recognise that some people might have feedback that they would like to share in private. If you want to provide feedback in private you can contact members of the CoC TF or the RIPE Chair Team directly. Some key changes in this version: - The goal of “a neutral, transparent and open framework for report handling” has been removed and will be covered in the upcoming document that describes process. - The scope is defined as “all participation in RIPE.” - Groups and events with separate governance from RIPE may adopt this CoC but will need to manage their own implementation. - A new section covers how the CoC relates to national law. - A new section lists desired behaviours along with an updated list of unacceptable behaviours. - Both lists are arranged alphabetically, to avoid suggesting a hierarchy. We look forward to reading your thoughts on the current draft. Kind regards, Leo Vegoda On behalf of the RIPE Code of Conduct TF [1] RIPE Meeting Code of Conduct 3.0 - Draft https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/ripe-meetings/ripe-meeting-code-o… [2] Python Community Code of Conduct https://www.python.org/psf/conduct/

7 12

Re: [diversity] [ripe-list] Updated Draft RIPE Code of Conduct Published for Community Review
by Mirjam Kuehne 26 Mar '21

26 Mar '21

Hi Alex, On 26/03/2021 15:55, Alex de Joode wrote: > On Fri, 26-03-2021 13h 38min, Mirjam Kuehne <mir(a)zu-hause.nl> wrote: > > 09 Nov 2020: TF Chair advises latecomer that TF is not empowered to > expand its membership, explains the arrangements to be made for > transparency, and encourages latecomer to contribute to the work > of the > TF by posting to the TF mailing list. > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/coc-tf/2020-November/000080.html > <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/coc-tf/2020-November/000080.html> > > Thank Mirjam, > > I > <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/coc-tf/2020-November/000080.html>'m > a bit curious about the word 'empowered'. > > Does that mean that a TF can only do what is explicitly allowed, and > there is no room for 'common sense'/'filling in the blancs' ? > > There is always room for common sense in RIPE. The request was discussed by the TF and as a result, the TF communicated that the membership of the TF had been decided and that it wouldn't make sense at that point to add more members as the work was well underway. In addition to that the TF took a number of steps to increase transparency and to make it easier to contribute to the work of the TF. Kind regards, Mirjam

2 1

Re: [diversity] [ripe-list] Updated Draft RIPE Code of Conduct Published for Community Review
by Alex de Joode 26 Mar '21

26 Mar '21

On Fri, 26-03-2021 15h 55min, Alex de Joode <alex(a)idgara.net> wrote: > On Fri, 26-03-2021 13h 38min, Mirjam Kuehne <mir(a)zu-hause.nl> wrote:> 09 Nov 2020: TF Chair advises latecomer that TF is not empowered to > expand its membership, explains the arrangements to be made for > transparency, and encourages latecomer to contribute to the work of the > TF by posting to the TF mailing list. > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/coc-tf/2020-November/000080.html > Thank Mirjam, I'm a bit curious about the word 'empowered'. Does that mean that a TF can only do what is explicitly allowed, and there is no room for 'common sense'/'filling in the blancs' ? -- IDGARA | Alex de Joode | alex(a)idgara.nl | +31651108221

1 0

Re: [diversity] [ripe-list] Updated Draft RIPE Code of Conduct Published for Community Review
by JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 26 Mar '21

26 Mar '21

Clearly, we are talking about "corner cases", but may be not so much as a murder. For example, sexual harassment (either in a mailing list, or in private emails after a mailing list message, or in a meeting), it is a very serious crime in many countries, again, not sure if it is the case in Netherlands. (and note that in the community I'm aware of at least 3 sexual harassment cases, with different "degrees", so not so strange situation) The fact that the Trusted Contacts are "confidential" in our own "scope" or "definition", may be not according to Dutch law. In many countries, the only ones that are *free* from reporting a crime to authorities (or to keep silence about them if interrogated), and up to certain extent only, are priest (in confession) and doctors in psychology. May be there are other cases. Again, this is why it will be good to understand the legal counsel perspective here. If Rod receives a complain "in trust", and it is a crime, and the victim don't want to report it to LEA, it is Rod exclusive decision to do it or not. If doesn't do it, he may be liable if it is discovered later on (example a sexual harassment turns into a rape later on). Clearly this is a very uncomfortable situation and I fully understand the need for the trusted contacts, but law is always on top of all that, we like it or not. Further to that, if the CoC is applied to "x" because a victim accused "x" about any kind of violation, and "x" decides is not right, and turns that "x" goes into litigation for that, because even his honor has been put in doubt, it may happen that courts decide that the application of the CoC was wrong, and damaged "x" rights and it may even impose sanctions and even inseminations to RIPE NCC, because RIPE is not a "legal figure" right? And RIPE NCC is the legal organization hosting mailing lists, meetings (virtual and face-to-face), etc. So, it is a very sensible issue, because any application of the CoC, must be clearly backed-up by law. We can't just decide "this is a bad behavior" in our opinion if the concerning jurisdiction is not backing-up it. I think the complete CoC must be validaded by the legal counsel, and not just for corner cases. Taking actions against any community member for something that *even if the full community* believes is wrong, may not be legal. Even a "club of members" can't set rules that aren't conforming to law. El 25/3/21 1:38, "ripe-list en nombre de Randy Bush" <ripe-list-bounces(a)ripe.net en nombre de randy(a)psg.com> escribió: > The reason I want to point this out, is to stress that people can > contact the Trusted Contacts in complete confidence. We will listen to > what you have to say, and in doing so there is no requirement for > others to know what is being said to us. and that is why you are *trusted* contacts. i am sure, given the creative lot we are, we could come up with corner cases involving murder, war crimes, etc. but i don't think that's why we're here, so let's not. :) randy --- randy(a)psg.com `gpg --locate-external-keys --auto-key-locate wkd randy(a)psg.com` signatures are back, thanks to dmarc header butchery ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

3 6

Re: [diversity] [ripe-list] Updated Draft RIPE Code of Conduct Published for Community Review
by JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 26 Mar '21

26 Mar '21

Hi Nick, > 1) Inputs from the legal team, should be open and transparently presented to the community. Task forces, committees, etc have reporting structures which allow them room to do what they are tasked to do, and then report back. There's no general principle which mandates that they need to report every single input, and doing so would slow down their work output to a crawl. -> Agree, but that doesn't preclude to have that information open. I believe at some point it was mention that there are minutes available, I was not able to find them, so that's why I'm asking for. > 2) As with any other documents, policies, etc., Community should be able to provide any inputs that we believe necessary, and not just "general principles or specific questions". I don't believe any tf / committee has said that they don't want community input. Most, or indeed all of them go out of their way to solicit this. That's why we have mailing lists like, for example, diversity@. -> Exactly, and that's what I wanted to ask for clarification. I may have been only the wording from Mirjam email which was not clear to me. > I want to insist in asking what is the rational for excluding anyone from a TF, Looking at this from a different point of view, you're asking whether people have the right to barge their way on to a task force or committee. Could you point us to any TF structure or committee structure anywhere in the world which accepts this on a point of principle? -> You are reversing the issue, in the wrong way. Any TF or committee can have rules of engagement or participation or whatever you want to call them *of course*. BUT those rules are explicit and clear since day one, not *after*. For example, we can say "this is the required expertise, or the maximum number of members (first in?), or a combination of those". I don't think we have a RIPE document that say that one of the attributions of the chairs is to constitute committees or TFs in a *closed* way, decided "on the spot" and arbitrarily managed. If we have it, then can't say anymore we are an open community, because that's discriminatory. What I've been asking for since I was denied participating in the CoC TF is very simple: what is the document that shows those rules. You don't think that's sensible to ask? Do you think "no response" is a sensible response? If we don't have those rules set and openly published *before* the call for participants of the TF starts, then they may be changed across the duration of the TF. This is a clear sign of "arbitrarity", if I can say so in English. It is an untrustable situation, common in dictatorial regimes, not open communities. I don't think this is what we want in this community. Correct me if I'm wrong. Nick ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

1 0

Re: [diversity] [ripe-list] Updated Draft RIPE Code of Conduct Published for Community Review
by Gergana Petrova 25 Mar '21

25 Mar '21

Hi all, Firstly, thank you to all who worked on this. It looks good to me. In reply to Sander and Sasha: currently the CoC says the reporting party, and not the CoC Team, is responsible, if they wish, to make a report to the relevant authorities. It also says the CoC could do so, if they think it is reasonable. If the authorities cannot do anything with this report without a victim (this is the case in some (most?) jurisdictions), then it is up to the authorities to handle this further - they could choose to contact the victim etc. It's out of our hands, so why debate it? Also, I think a CoC cannot preclude a party (whether it is a victim or not) from filing a report with the authorities. It just doesn't have that power. Lastly, I second other people on this list's confusion about why the PC should have anything to do with the approval/applicability of the CoC, in events where there is a PC. Why would they want to have this responsibility? As far as I know it is not currently in any of their Charters. I'd be curious to hear what they think about this. I support other's suggestion to leave that part out. Cheers, Gergana On 24/03/2021 15:18, Sander Steffann wrote: > Hi Sasha, > > On Wed, 2021-03-24 at 14:09 +0100, Sasha Romijn wrote: >> I strongly feel that it should be up to the person who was harmed by >> an act whether or not to involve police or other authorities. > > Absolutely > Sander >

5 6