To clarify again...I think the TC members would be good candidates for the CoC Team - they already have some training and are known to the community :) On 20/10/2019 09:42, Amanda Gowland wrote:

Hi Hans Petter,

...

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-of... and https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/ripe-meetings/ripe-meeting-code-of...

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? No, it wasn't deliberate - the text is just so explicit later in the document on this but we can add it back it in, no problem.

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 CodeofConduct 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. Just to clarify - the intention with the CoC Team wasn't to replace

On 19/10/2019 23:50, Hans Petter Holen wrote: the Trusted Contacts necessarily. But yeah, I think that if we have a CoC Team, then it's probably not necessary and if the existing TC members were to receive the additional training that the CoC Team would get, they could easily nominate themselves to be on the team. Having two bodies around this may be confusing and we definitely do not want that.

As per the concerns raised earlier by Daniel and the discussion I had with you, we added the appeals process (two parts - for appealing a potential member of the CoC Team and for appealing a decision from the CoC Team on an investigation). Before sending it to the list, I spoke about this in detail with legal and incorporated their feedback into the 3.0 version.

...

-hph

Amanda

...

-- -- Hans Petter Holen Mobile +47 45 06 60 54 | hph@oslo.net <mailto:hph@oslo.net> | http://hph.oslo.net

_______________________________________________ diversity mailing list diversity@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/diversity

_______________________________________________ diversity mailing list diversity@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/diversity

Hi Rob, I wanted to respond to one issue you raise in particular, as it’s also important going forward: On 21 Oct 2019, at 12:53, Rob Evans <Rob.Evans@jisc.ac.uk> wrote:

One thing that concerns me more is that we receive very few reports to the TCs despite comments about reportable events occurring, and I would like to understand why that is the case. Are people not reporting because trying to find one of the three of us is too difficult? Because people aren’t sure what to report? Because we’re the wrong people? Because we aren’t perceived to be able to follow the reports up? I don’t think it’s the latter, because newcomers probably aren’t as jaded about the role of TC as some on this list appear to be.

As someone with a lot of experience being on CoC teams, getting people to report things is one of the biggest challenges. I have been on the “do I want to report this” quite a few times. The question I usually ask myself is: is it worth it? How much time and energy will this take me? Will I actually feel better or worse after making a report? Do I have any confidence that this will be taken seriously, or is there no point? Will they try to turn it on me or victim blame me, and how will that affect me? A few stories of me reporting CoC incidents in events where I was not an organiser: - A while ago I had an unpleasant experience at a conference. I asked how to contact the CoC team, but they kept insisting to just mail their info@ address. I decided not to follow up, as I had no confidence there was anyone in the team that had any idea how to deal with an issue. I ended up sneaking out of the venue carefully, as I believed this person might very well end up trying to follow me back to my hotel. - Another time, I reported a blatantly sexist sponsor slide to an organiser. They responded with “well, I don’t know what to do”. The solution was obvious: delete that slide from the deck, but they refused to do that, or anything else. The only reason I even bothered to report at all was because I had an hour long conversation the night before with the same organiser about CoC management and I thought they understood. I heard a number of racist jokes later, which I didn’t even bother to report. - In another conference, a friend had an unpleasant experience with a drunk attendee. I had an hour long conversation with the organiser about how everything about their conference setup was inducing excessive alcohol use, which is a huge trigger for CoC issues, and how they could still improve on that the next day. They did nothing to improve, and the second day had one drunk attendee trying to set someone else on fire (they seemed to know each other and see it as a joke?). I decided that given their previous lack of action, there was no point to reporting, so I left and never returned. - As I mentioned in the plenary, I reported an issue that occurred on a RIPE working group mailing list, where reports should be sent to the respective WG chairs. I also CCed the trusted contacts. I sent numerous reminders and received a number of apologies for not receiving a reply, but never an actual response to my report. Last Tuesday, the report had gone a full year without any response, so I told them not to bother anymore. There was no reply to that so far. In my personal experience, without other specific circumstances, the chances in a random tech event with a CoC are about 50/50 that a CoC incident will be worth the time and effort it takes to even write up a mail. This is why a CoC and everything surrounding it needs to work hard to raise the confidence that a report will be worth it. Because sometimes leaving and never coming back, is less painful than making a CoC report. In the RIPE community, I have even less confidence in this, because the wording of the CoC is incredibly weak. If someone deliberately misgenders me (this has not actually happened at RIPE to me), one could easily argue that falls under “free speech” and “diversity of views”, which are very important according to the CoC. Will misgendering be seen as free speech if I report it? No idea. Do I want to take that chance? No. Based on the CoC text, and the complete lack of a publicly documented process, the WG issue I mentioned above went precisely as I expected: poorly and a waste of my time. So when I am in a CoC team, I take every chance I get to make people feel more comfortable with reporting. It’s why the CoC 3.0 explicitly lists a lot of behaviours that are not acceptable and why there is a publicly documented process. It’s why the text stresses that a reporter will not be punished for making a report that turns out not to be a violation. Why it specifically tells them that making multiple reports is ok. And that they’re not a burden for reporting. I often also talk for a minute or two about the CoC during a conference opening, and there I stress the above points again, and basically tell people “if anything at all happens that makes you feel uncomfortable or weirded out, that is enough to talk to us, and we will not judge you or blame you for what happened”. But that only helps if that is a message you communicate consistently, and that is definitely not happening in the RIPE community now. Sasha

On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 00:04 Sascha Luck [ml] <lists-ripe@c4inet.net> wrote:

On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 01:46:04PM +0200, And you lurk on WG mailing lists for the apparent purpose of finding and reporting offence. (A very cursory check on the archives reveals no contributions from your email address)

Are you sure you want to be a member of this community or its ruler?

The above is a false dichotomy wrapped in an ad hominem spiced up with a straw men argument. To me it seems you went out of your way to antagonize and provoke. Why?

On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 12:20:30AM +0200, Job Snijders wrote:

The above is a false dichotomy wrapped in an ad hominem spiced up with a straw men argument. To me it seems you went out of your way to antagonize and provoke. Why?

Not for the fun of it. I'm trying to tease out whether that CoC is merely flawed and overshooting its stated aim (protecting meeting attendants from harassment and assault) or intentionally designed to be abusive (cleansing the policymaking community of those annoying wrongthinkers and reactionaries). rgds, Sascha Luck

Hi Sasha, On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 12:49:27AM +0200, Sasha Romijn wrote:

Perhaps we lead very different lives, but I’ve never seen attempts at setting people on fire as “horsing around”. That was not an overstatement, it was pure luck that their clothing did not catch fire. I can fortunately say that I have never been on fire nor present when anyone else was, but I imagine it would have been a thoroughly unpleasant experience for all involved and present. But as I said, perhaps we simply lead very different lives.

Must be that. I've seen it more than once, both accidentally and by just being drunk or stupid. Even did it to myself once or twice and learned from it. But what, exactly, would have been the purpose of reporting this - except to the fire brigade who, IME, *always* respond promptly to such reports? (Where someone tries to set fire to someone else in an attempt to injure or kill them, it is of course a completely different situation. But you said yourself that *both* parties were treating it as horseplay)

If I were trying to be the ruler of the RIPE community (what does that even mean?), I would be doing an awful job as I have no position of power in this community, and never had one. I’m also quite a busy person, and ruling over the entire RIPE community seems like a lot of work, I really don’t have time for that.

I always thought that one of the defining things about the RIPE community is that it *has no* positions of power. Not even the WG chairs or the RIPE chair have any real power. Everyone can come in but nobody can demand to be obeyed or even listened to. I am afraid that this CoC will create a ruling clique, junta, whatever you want to call it, that *does* have such power. rgds, Sascha Luck

On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 12:08:26AM +0000, Rob Evans wrote:

I don’t want to lose the social aspect because of irregularities in the professional side (or vice versa), but if I know which one has to go, you can probably make an educated guess. My view of the CoC is that it should be trying to find that balance — our community is more than just (say) the ITU, but neither is it a free-for-all, and most importantly of all, we welcome anyone and everyone that can contribute to our discussions in a constructive manner.

As usual, this is just my personal opinion, yours will vary.

When I first attended a RIPE meeting, my impression was that it was a friendly and cooperative meeting of (mostly technical) people with an interest in the Internet. Things appear to have changed, these days it appears to be mostly attended by managers (some of whom used to be these erstwhile techies), all playing their corporate roles. My impression, and it may be wrong, is that one of the goals of the Diversity TF is to *change* this. A CoC offence of "unbecoming a professional" would appear to fly in the face of that goal... rgds, Sascha Luck

Cheers, Rob

To chime in on this specific example,

On 22 Oct 2019, at 0:04, Sascha Luck [ml] <lists-ripe@c4inet.net> wrote:

...

- In another conference, a friend had an unpleasant experience with a drunk attendee. I had an hour long conversation with the organiser about how everything about their conference setup was inducing excessive alcohol use, which is a huge trigger for CoC issues, and how they could still improve on that the next day. They did nothing to improve, and the second day had one drunk attendee trying to set someone else on fire (they seemed to know each other and see it as a joke?). I decided that given their previous lack of action, there was no point to reporting, so I left and never returned.

TL;DR: You tried to prevent (presumably adult) conf attendeees from getting drunk but weren't (quite sensibly) listened to. Then you considered reporting a couple of drunk people arsing around that had nothing to do with you and oboviously decided not to make some big thing about.

I observed behaviour on the Monday evening social that could have been potentially threatening to the venue staff itself: One attendee thought it was taking too long to get his beer (all 3-so venue staff where busy pouring drinks for several hundred people), and decide to reach over the bar and operate the tap for at least himself. I asked him if he could just wait for his turn and let the staff venue serve his beer. Afterwards I talked with one of the waiters and luckily he wasn’t too much fuzzed by the incident, but talking with some people later this week I realised two things: * This could have gone out of hand, with more drunk people following the bad example and venue staff feeling threatened. * CoC is beyond meeting attendees and meeting staff, it is also applicable to venue staff participating in the meeting and socials. We should inform participating venue staff when the CoC is in place Best regards, Ruben