Leo, task force members,
let's remember that we have consensus on the code of conduct itself and
that we are discussing the implementation. Not all ist lost. ;-)
I observe some pretty strong reactions requesting 'due process' from
long standing, constructive and productive members of the community.
This is serious. There is a risk that some of these good people might
stop contributing if we proceed with this draft procedure document. We
do not want to loose good people for the sake of being more inclusive.
Upon reflection it appears to me that the requests for 'due process' may
not come from a desire for a quasi legal process but from a *perception*
that the the *process*, not the code, is biased against the community
member whose behaviour is being reported.
Here are a number of suggestions to address this:
1. Make it explicit that it is part of the process to apply the
'Discretion to Reject Reports' from the code. It may be sufficient to
just mention this at the part of the assessment process in step 3.
2. Re-draft the process to focus on stopping the *behaviour* that is
violating the code of conduct and not on sanctioning people. This is an
important difference.
3. Add more explicit mechanisms for the person whose behaviour is being
reported to be heard. This is especially important if more serious
actions are being considered. Maybe offer them to choose a member of
the CoC team to hear their side of the story and add that member to the
assessment team?
Less important but worth considering: if I understand the proposed
process correctly, each and every report would lead to the creation of a
new assessment group. I perceive this as very heavy and resource
intensive. A perfect DoS target! In my opinion the process should allow
for some sort of triage should the load get too high. Pragmatism should
be explicitly allowed. For instance if the load gets high a screening
team could be assembled from members of the CoC team at least for each
RIPE meeting or maybe for a certain time period. This screening team
could then filter out obviously spurious reports and maybe quickly deal
with minor incidents.
Nit: Improve the 'Introduction' sections with explicit references to the
other relevant documents such as the CoC itself and a clear scoping of
the document itself. Maybe rename it 'Scope'?
I appreciate your personal efforts and the efforts of the task force.
Daniel
