- diversity - mailman.ripe.net

Re: [diversity] [ripe-list] Updated Draft RIPE Code of Conduct Published for Community Review
by Daniel Karrenberg 21 Apr '21

21 Apr '21

On 21 Apr 2021, at 12:57, Hans Petter Holen wrote: > my naïve view is that, if the ncc is an organiser, then the coc MUST > apply. > > > We strongly believe that all RIPE NCC-organised events should follow > the > same CoC, and we think this is something the community should be able > to > agree on. …. The RIPE NCC is of course free to make rules within its area of responsibility. I expect that this will happen in the RIPE tradition by consulting the communities along the lines Mirjam and Niall are setting out within this discussion and not by unilateral action on the part of the RIPE NCC. I hope that the RIPE NCC will be able to keep facilitating local and regional communities while respecting the local codes and customs. Very probably this discussion is another symptom of how the pandemic influences our discourse by preventing face to face, informal and group interactions. I apologise for my part in this. We may very well all pretty much agree. ;-) Daniel

1 0

Re: [diversity] [ripe-list] Updated Draft RIPE Code of Conduct Published for Community Review
by Daniel Karrenberg 21 Apr '21

21 Apr '21

That works forme. For the reasoning see my other message in this thread on the RIPE list. Daniel PS: In my reality the PC does not organise a meeting of its own and therefore has no role in determining things like which CoC applies. The PC has the responsibility for the program of *part of* the RIPE meeting which is organised by RIPE and chaired by our RIPE Chair. On 19 Apr 2021, at 18:50, Niall O'Reilly wrote: > Perhaps the following text would suit: > >> The RIPE NCC regularly organizes events for communities which are >> distinct from RIPE. When preparing for such an event, the RIPE NCC >> will ascertain whether the respective community has adopted the >> RIPE Code of Conduct and, if not, also ascertain which Code must >> be applied.

1 0

FYI: Research Paper: Representation is Not Sufficient for Selecting Gender Diversity
by Mirjam Kuehne 07 Apr '21

07 Apr '21

Hi all, You might find this research paper interesting. Kind regards, Mirjam *Representation is Not Sufficient for Selecting Gender Diversity* Representation of women and minorities in a “selectorate”—the group that chooses an organization's leaders—is a key mechanism for promoting diversity. We show that representation, on its own, is not sufficient for selecting gender diversity: a supportive organizational culture is also required. In the case of the Internet Engineering Task Force, a random increase in female representation in its selection committee caused an increase in female appointments only after cultural norms supporting diversity and inclusion became more salient. <https://www.nber.org/papers/w28649 <https://www.nber.org/papers/w28649>>

1 0

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

We are looking for the *diverse* selection committee persons for the RIPE NCC "Community Projects Fund"
by Vesna Manojlovic 16 Feb '21

16 Feb '21

Dear all, RIPE NCC is financially supporting (mostly) FLOSS projects every year: https://ripe.net/cpf Who gets the funding is decided by the volunteers from the RIPE community, who form the selection committee. Each member has committed to serving a minimum term of one year (and a maximum of three) to ensure continuity. **Call for Selection Committee Members 2021** https://www.ripe.net/support/cpf/selection-committee Do you have a keen eye for emerging talents and innovative ideas? Would you like to shape the development of projects that will help the technical community? We are currently looking to fill two open slots on the selection committee. Committee members will need to serve terms of between one to three years and review applications from early August until late October of each year of their term. If you are interested in volunteering your time to serve on the selection committee, please submit your application before 31 March 2021. Successful applicants will be notified by the end of April. https://www.ripe.net/participate/forms/apply/ripe-ncc-community-projects-fu… So please consider applying yourself -- and spread this call to the people both inside & OUTSIDE of the RIPE community!! Thank you, Vesna

1 0