- diversity - mailman.ripe.net

Code of Conduct
by Hans Petter Holen 22 Oct '19

22 Oct '19

Thanks for the hard work with the next version of the code of conduct. Special thanks to Brian and Sahsa for presenting the work. Now the final challenge is to establish consensus. This means identifying remaining issues and address them. (This does not mean that all can be solved, but we should aim to document why they are not solved at this point.) I have done a quick analisys of the differences between the existing code of conduct and the new code of conduct. https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/ripe-meetings/ripe-meeting-code-o… and https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/ripe-meetings/ripe-meeting-code-o… The main text: « For over a quarter of a century, the RIPE community's strength comes from its breadth of experience, diversity of views, and an open, respectful exchange of ideas – values that we want all of our RIPE Meeting attendees to uphold.» Is the same in the two documents. In the old code of conduct it continues: « Please treat each other with tolerance and respect. Free speech and an open exchange of ideas are encouraged and celebrated. Demeaning, intimidating or harming anyone at the meeting is wrong. We are especially sensitive to behaviour that offends based on gender, sexual orientation, religion, race or ethnic origin, or other perceived social, cultural, or personal differences.» This has been removed from the new Coc, at least from the Intro. Is this deliberate? In the old code of conduct, there are currently 3 trusted contacts, selected by the RIPE chair without any documented process. In the new version the trusted contacts has been renamed to a CoC team of 4 to 6 and with a process on how the RIPE Chair selects the As for consequences the existing CoC only states « Please be aware that attendees violating the RIPE Meeting Code ofConduct may be asked to leave the meeting without a refund and other actions may be taken as deemed necessary.» In the new version there is a much more detailed list. It goes one step further on two areas: * Ban from future meetings is explicitly stated (which I would argue could happen under the existing CoC too) * Removing content from presentations on the meeting web. Here the PC has taken a very principal possition that the submitted presentation will be published as presented. Appeals is not at all covered in the existing CoC but is specified in the new version. While this is a very quick and high level analisys, I am thinking of publishing my thoughts on this, but would like your input before I do so. -hph -- -- Hans Petter Holen Mobile +47 45 06 60 54 | hph(a)oslo.net | http://hph.oslo.net

9 15

some thoughts on draft code of conduct 3.0
by Joe Abley 22 Oct '19

22 Oct '19

Hi all, I have read the draft code of conduct published at <https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/ripe-meetings/ripe-meeting-code-o…> and have written down some comments, as requested. Some context: I do not personally feel like I am in an under-represented group of any kind. Despite being a serial immigrant in an entirely technical sense, I have never felt systemically under-represented, oppressed or threatened in my life. I think this makes me fortunate, since oppression is surely not something to wish for, but also quite ignorant, which is nothing to be proud of. Anyway: The need for the code of conduct is clear to me, thanks in part to the efforts of people like the authors of this document. The principles of the draft code of conduct seem entirely reasonable to me. I could summarise them as "be kind and show respect" -- but kindness and respect have the potential to be subjective and I think the extra detail in the document is useful. The consequences of a code of conduct violation seem clear and reasonable to me, although I would add "No action (if the team has not been able to determine that a violation has occurred)", which is not the same as the final bullet and seems important to include, since life is analogue and its signal is lossy. I think the idea of having a team of trained people available to navigate the swamp of poor conduct is a good idea. I do wonder slightly what happens if due to illness, visa problems or other unexpected consequences, it is not possible for three or more team members to attend a meeting. Simply declaring a requirement isn't enough to ensure it will always happen. However unlikely, it seems sensible to think about what would happen in that case. I have one principal concern with the document, as written. The RIPE community includes people who are painfully aware of what poor conduct looks like (because they have been subject to it) and also people who have never knowingly experienced it and who hence are poorly-informed. Setting aside deliberate bad behaviour that I am certain exists and which this code of conduct properly seeks to deal with, there is still the potential for harm between people who don't realise they are being hurtful and those who are hurt as a consequence. This seems like the most difficult kind of interaction to deal with fairly as a mediator and as a community. This document puts an enormous responsibility on a small team of volunteers to provide that function, and it is not obvious to me that that is fair. This seems to me like hard and painful work; work that has the potential to cause collateral damage to the community if it ever becomes too much for a small pool of volunteers to deal with, and rife with decisions that have the potential to have great personal and professional impact to all people concerned, including the people on the team. So, I have some thoughts: 1. Perhaps the code of conduct team don't need to take ultimate responsibility for decisions; perhaps in the case where the team has decided that a member of the community has behaved badly and action should be taken, that action (and responsibility for the action) can be taken by the RIPE NCC as the organisation that coordinates the RIPE community's social infrastructure. (Perhaps this is even prudent, considering that some of the actions that the team might decide should be taken might have legal consequences; I don't think volunteers should have to take legal or other personal risk. There are many jurisdictions to consider and some of them are more litigious than others.) 2. Perhaps the kind of training that is imagined for the code of conduct team could be made available, in some form, for everybody. I would certainly appreciate being educated on the myriad problems faced by others that I am not aware of. Awareness and understanding are surely good bridges towards fostering a safer and more kind environment for everybody. (That last one in particular just seems like good engineering: you take precautions when you design networks and systems to avoid failure, but you are prepared to deal with failure in case it happens anyway. The draft arguably concentrates on the latter without paying as much attention on the former. I think both are important.) Joe

3 2

Meeting venue influences inclusivity
by Hank Nussbacher 21 Oct '19

21 Oct '19

I have read over the draft V3 CoC and notice an aspect that has bothered me and which precludes me and others from attending general RIPE meetings in certain venues. RIPE 75 took place in Dubai, UAE. Any Israeli citizen is not allowed to enter Dubai: http://www.dubaifaqs.com/israeli-stamp-passport-dubai.php "Israeli citizens are not permitted to enter the UAE on an Israeli passport or apply for a UAE visa" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93United_Arab_Emirates_relations "As the UAE does not officially recognize Israel, and does not allow Israeli citizens or those suspected of being Israeli citizens entry into the UAE, including Israeli passport holders, except for transit." If a CoC is being drafted and the intent is to be inclusive as possible and to eliminate discrimination based on nationality, I would like to suggest that it include a section that the venue of any general RIPE meeting cannot take place in a country that forbids certain people from attending. Regards, Hank

6 5

Fwd: [ripe-list] Code of Conduct 3.0
by Hans Petter Holen 20 Oct '19

20 Oct '19

Malcolm raises some issues in his email to the ripe-list. How can theese be addressed? Even under the current CoC with trusted contacts this is not defined. I personally does not have an answer to how to handle this. There was an incident in 2016 that may be used as a case study to better understand the complexity: https://omblog.icann.org/ ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Malcolm Hutty <Malcolm(a)linx.net> Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 at 14:25 Subject: [ripe-list] Code of Conduct 3.0 To: ripe-list(a)ripe.net <ripe-list(a)ripe.net> Dear all, I understand that on Thursday afternoon the RIPE Plenary will be invited to adopt “Code of Conduct v3.0”. Unfortunately I must leave Rotterdam at lunchtime, so I am writing to share with you my reasons for believing it should not be approved. Code of Conduct v3.0 proposes the creation of a new entity, the “CoC Team” who will be invested with the power to hear allegations of breach of the Code of Conduct and decide what sanctions, if any, to apply to the community member in violation. Planned sanctions include, amongst other things, 1. Not allowing someone to participate further in RIPE Meetings and/or other RIPE community spaces, for a set period or an indefinite period 2. A public reprimand 3. Requiring that a public apology is made Denying someone the opportunity to participate in RIPE is clearly a serious step. Issuing a public reprimand, or requiring a public apology (i.e. admission of guilt) is potentially seriously damaging to a person’s reputation. Since a public reprimand might make reference to the purposes of the Code, including the prevention of sexual harassment and racist abuse, and assert that the person was found to have violated the Code, but not necessarily say what the individual is alleged to have actually done, a public reprimand from the CoC team could have lasting impact on a person’s career prospects. It is therefore a matter of great importance to every member of this community that if such sanctions are ever applied, the most scrupulous process is used. Unfortunately, in my view the process set out in Code of Conduct 3.0 is very far from fit for purpose. For a start, given the gravity of the intended sanctions, I am stunned to see that the Code neither requires nor suggests that the CoC Team should attempt to speak to the accused individual to get their side of the story. Indeed, there is no requirement that the accused person is even informed of the details of the allegation against them. A public reprimand could be the first the subject hears of the matter. The right to be heard before being punished is not an obscure legalistic procedural device. It is fundamental to basic fairness. Granted, a right of appeal has been added to the Code (thank you Daniel Karrenberg for your urgent intervention!), but I do not think appeal after the fact is sufficient correction to a basically abusive process. Although the most egregious, that is far from the only flaw with Code of Conduct 3.0. It positively encourages anonymous complaints. Complaints are also encouraged not only from alleged “victims”, but also from “witnesses” The Code promises that the identity of the complainant will not be disclosed to the subject of the complaint, potentially making it impossible to understand the circumstances or provide an explanation. The person submitting a complaint is not disqualified under the Code from sitting as a member of the CoC Team adjudicating the complaint. Given that the Code also invites witness reports and assures witnesses that their reports will not be viewed less favourably because they have made multiple reports, it would be entirely consistent with the Code for the CoC Team to also act as as a Code of Conduct patrol, making reports of violations and then sitting in judgement on their own allegations. Thanks to anonymity, nobody outside the CoC team would even know if this were occurring. There are other problems, but this message is already too long. Throughout the Code, the emphasis is consistently on the CoC Team’s responsibility to the reporter. There is no such recognition of a responsibility to the person ‘under investigation’ – by which I mean, the person who is the subject of the complaint; there is actually no expectation set in the Code that the CoC Team would actually conduct an investigation, rather than proceeding directly to judgement on the basis solely of the information contained in the allegation. I have described some serious flaws, but in my view, it is not worth trying to rescue this proposal with patches to each of them. The document as a whole is riddled with bias, and should be abandoned. The Diversity Taskforce has demonstrated that it is not an appropriate body to be undertaking this work. Any serious attempt to create a process for enforcement of a Code of Conduct should be predicated on the basis that a grievance and disciplinary process (which is what this is) owes a serious duty of fairness to all parties, not only to one side. Malcolm. -- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | web: www.linx.net London Internet Exchange | London Internet Exchange Ltd Monument Place, 24 Monument Street London EC3R 8AJ <https://www.google.com/maps/search/Monument+Place,+24+Monument+Street+Londo…> Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA -- -- Hans Petter Holen Mobile +47 45 06 60 54 | hph(a)oslo.net | http://hph.oslo.net

3 2

Re: [diversity] [comms-circle] [ripe-list] Towards a more inclusive community
by Julia Freeman 17 Oct '19

17 Oct '19

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 06:12:09PM +0300, Hank Nussbacher wrote: > On 17/10/2019 17:32, Julia Freeman wrote: > > Julie, at no time did I say it is not happening. I just said that > *I *am clueless about it since I didn't see it or hear about it. > Now that you have come forward as well as Jordi, hopefully people > will be kinder and more importantly, if you see such behavior being > imposed on someone else, and you are a bystander, then you should > say something - not only the victim. Yes, people witnessing things should be doing more. The whole issue of the bystander effect could fill whole dissertations. Not every CoC violation is easily witnessed. The problem is, everytime someone says "I've not seen it", it is interpreted by people as "it's not happening". We shouldn't have to go into detail of what happened for people to believe us that harrasssment and CoC violations are happening. And my name is Julia not Julie. J -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFdqIfe42M0lILkmGIRAtBoAJ9y+A9gespRoD4ux5djECc69AnziwCgto5Y 2cOtLUfVKwDFziaS5k2+vIg= =KIuK -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Community Plenary Presentation
by Brian Nisbet 17 Oct '19

17 Oct '19

Folks, Amanda, Denesh, Sasha and I have put this presentation together for the community plenary this afternoon. It is forthright, but we definitely feel that it needs to be so. We are going to make it clear that we're still accepting comments on v3.0, but also still looking at having this in place for RIPE 80 if at all possible. I know I and others present in Rotterdam have got some really good further feedback. And, of course, as with all things, whatever CoC we have is never set in stone, it's always changeable as situations change. Thanks for everyone's input on this so far! Brian Brian Nisbet 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(a)heanet.ie www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270

6 8

Suscribe
by laura kaplan 17 Oct '19

17 Oct '19

Hello I would like to be suscribe to this list please. Thank you Laura

3 2

Community Plenary Presentation
by Brian Nisbet 17 Oct '19

17 Oct '19

Folks, Amanda, Denesh, Sasha and I have put this presentation together for the community plenary this afternoon. It is forthright, but we definitely feel that it needs to be so. I tried to send it to the list earlier, but it was caught in moderation, so you can see it here: https://ripe79.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/ripe-community/ We are going to make it clear that we're still accepting comments on v3.0, but also still looking at having this in place for RIPE 80 if at all possible. I know I and others present in Rotterdam have got some really good further feedback. And, of course, as with all things, whatever CoC we have is never set in stone, it's always changeable as situations change. Thanks for everyone's input on this so far! Brian Brian Nisbet 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(a)heanet.ie www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270

1 0

Re: [diversity] CoC Impact assessment
by Hans Petter Holen 16 Oct '19

16 Oct '19

Julia, & task force memebers. On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 at 07:21, Julia Freeman <ripe-diversity(a)quixotic.eu> wrote: > I am writing on behalf of the diversity task force regarding the proposed > improvements to the Ripe Code Of Conduct. There has been some confusion as > to the next steps we need to take, and were hoping you could provide > guidance on what should happen next. Strictly speaking we do not have a process for adopting RIPE Community governance documents. Lacking this I try to follow the PDP where relevant. If there is consensus in the Task force on the latest version I think you should publish the version so it can be moved from discussion phase to review phase. When all concerns has been addressed in the review phase, a call for consensus can be made. > We have a draft version 3.0 of the CoC, based on feedback from various > parties to a version 2.0 that was sent to ripe mailing lists in May. This > version is below. > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yqOUPR02SONuSt812cuOBkk_xnhjYzjdk9qmsJk… Great. Has this updated draft been published yet? Is there consensus in the task force? <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yqOUPR02SONuSt812cuOBkk_xnhjYzjdk9qmsJk…> > It has been suggested that perhaps we should have RIPE NCC legal do an > Impact Analysis on the code of conduct before it's fully adopted, but we > are unclear the exact process required. In the PDP there is a step for the RIPE NCC to do an impact asessment at the end of the discussion phase before moving to the review phase. > > Please can you advise, and if appropriate, request RIPE NCC Legal do an > impact analysis on our proposed code of conduct. I am happy to do so if you can confirm that there is consensus in the task force on the document, and the latest draft has been published. Hans Petter > > -- -- Hans Petter Holen Mobile +47 45 06 60 54 | hph(a)oslo.net | http://hph.oslo.net

2 2

RIPE Community plenary - Presentation of the latest version of the code of conduct
by Hans Petter Holen 16 Oct '19

16 Oct '19

Hi, I have put Code of Conduct on the agenda for discussion in the Community plenary tomorrow. It would be great if the chair, or a task force representative could present the latest published version of the code of conduct. Please let me know who will present and upload your presentation into the presentation system. Hans Petter -- -- Hans Petter Holen Mobile +47 45 06 60 54 | hph(a)oslo.net | http://hph.oslo.net

3 2