On 17/07/2017 10:28, Malcolm Hutty wrote:
On 17/07/2017 09:19, Brian Nisbet wrote:
Malcolm,
The CoC was suggested, then formally proposed, discussed by a small group within the community, watered down, agreed to by the WG Chairs and then announced.
What you appear to be describing is a process in which some people came up with it (you?), and WG chairs had input into the drafting but nobody else. That's not a community process.
You know, I'd started to write a mail to document the history of the Code of Conduct, then I stopped. For a start I'm not sure what kind of community process would satisfy you, but more to the point I don't understand your objection. We had (have?) a problem, some wording and light process was brought in to address that. It was necessary. The community, by virtue of accepting this, agreed with it. And I think over time that agreement and acceptance has grown.
Or was the wording proposed on ripe-list or in plenary for discussion before it went to the WG Chairs? If so, I missed it - which is quite possible, I must admit.
This TF hasn't been tasked with looking at the CoC but it is core to what we're doing.
OK then.
And I'm glad we're agreed on this. Obviously you can, as a member of the community, take up these issues with the RIPE Chair etc, but I will admit I'm having a hard time understanding your issue here. But I'm happy to take it to private email. Brian