Summary: - It is good that the draft gives examples of unacceptable behavior. - It is a real bad idea to create a special enforcement committee. - The draft should encourage anyone in the community to actively intervene when they observe unacceptable behavior. - It would be better to continue the current system of trusted contacts and empower them more. -------- Full disclosure: I have participated in RIPE for 30 years and attended 76 RIPE meetings as well as numerous other meetings organised by our community. During these 30 years there were some times when I have not behaved in an exemplary manner; a few of those times I would have run afoul of this draft code of conduct. With the help of people from this community I have been able to realise my behavior was not appropriate, to apologise and to make amends. Despite these missteps I feel that I have contributed positively to the development and success of the RIPE community. I have also experienced some inappropriate behavior towards myself over the years and dealt with it appropriately, again with the help of people from this community. I welcome the part of this draft that describes examples of inappropriate behavior and states clearly that we as a community do not tolerate it. This is an improvement over the current code. I am very deeply concerned about the part of this draft that creates a very vaguely described 'enforcement committee' without any responsibility to anyone and without any process whatsoever. Adopting this part of the code would be a disaster for the credibility and standing of RIPE all by itself but even more so by inviting our antagonists to use it as a vehicle to harm us. RIPE is not a conference but a community that with a significant governance aspect. We argue in favor of our self governance by pointing to RIPE, its openness and its low threshold to participation. This requires that anyone interested can participate meaningfully in RIPE. Excluding people from RIPE will be very bad; doing so without a clear process and a hearing will be a disaster! We should remove this language from the draft completely. Instead, I suggest to a call on everyone in the community to actively intervene when they observe inappropriate behavior and to help all parties concerned to resolve the situation. The language should make it clear that such interventions are positive and welcomed by the RIPE community. I realise that it requires courage to act. We should encourage people and not give them further excuse to look away by putting emphasis only on a specific formal mechanism. I suggest to maintain the current system of trusted contacts for reporting violations and add that staff and volunteers such as chairs and PC are also available. Where, by the way, is the evidence that this is not sufficient? Maybe the trusted contacts can provide some sort of transparency report to us? Further I recommend to develop a response plan that defines who is responsible to take action in cases where individuals do not stop inappropriate behavior once it is pointed out to them. These responsibilities do exist today within our governance structure. They are shared between RIPE, RIPE NCC and third parties such as the owners/operators of our venues. Maybe this needs to be clarified and we may need to establish roles within these structures that are responsible to follow up on any actions. But let us not create a new committee whose sole purpose is to sanction community members without any process! Before we know it this will lead its own life. We should also make it clear that we do not tolerate any abuse of the code of conduct itself. I realise that can be interpreted as off-putting. However it is an essential part of such a code. In case the TF wishes to act on my suggestions regarding the draft, I am very much willing to help with creating new text. Sincerely! Daniel
Hello Daniel, Thanks for your extensive response. Unless I’ve overlooked it, we did not include a mention of the proposed CoC response guide in the mail to ripe-list, which answers some of your questions, and I’ve responded to more things below. The most recent draft of the response guide is on: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gaLo4axYDRTpQnhUJyG92EHBmEIkxSDN8Urmy-zn... <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gaLo4axYDRTpQnhUJyG92EHBmEIkxSDN8Urmy-zn9nQ/edit?usp=sharing>
Instead, I suggest to a call on everyone in the community to actively intervene when they observe inappropriate behavior and to help all parties concerned to resolve the situation.
Although this is a good message in general, it is in my experience unlikely to have much effect. Speaking up, even if you are not the person directly affected by the incident, is a big step. It always involves some danger, especially when the person creating harm is in a position of power. The bystander effect also comes into play. I would definitely be unlikely to speak up, because it’s usually too risky, and has too little chance to make a difference. Especially at a RIPE meeting right now, due to lack of an effective CoC process. Also, “helping all parties to resolve the situation” is risky language, as it places a responsibility on the person being harmed to contribute to resolving the situation. In some incidents this may be appropriate, but in CoC teams I’ve been a part of, a fundamental point of all the process is that we place as little burden on the reporter as possible.
I suggest to maintain the current system of trusted contacts for reporting violations and add that staff and volunteers such as chairs and PC are also available. Where, by the way, is the evidence that this is not sufficient? Maybe the trusted contacts can provide some sort of transparency report to us?
Well, currently I wouldn’t consider reporting a CoC incident at a RIPE meeting, because why would I? None of the people you list are actually empowered to take any action, other than offer sympathies. And how will these people make decisions? If I make a CoC report, will it be discussed by the entire PC, all chairs, and trusted contacts together? That is way too many people, and introduces many problems. If you empower these people to actually take action, up to the unusually rare action of immediate removal from the conference, how does it solve the concerns you raise about a CoC team? On a sidenote, this would also involve a requirement for training all PC members, WG chairs, and trusted contacts at CoC incident response.
Further I recommend to develop a response plan that defines who is responsible to take action in cases where individuals do not stop inappropriate behavior once it is pointed out to them.
Are you saying that people should always, in every incident, first have the behaviour pointed out, then re-violate, before more serious action can be taken?
These responsibilities do exist today within our governance structure. They are shared between RIPE, RIPE NCC and third parties such as the owners/operators of our venues. Maybe this needs to be clarified and we may need to establish roles within these structures that are responsible to follow up on any actions.
I’d argue that the current CoC process has way too many people kind of responsible, and therefore in the end nobody responsible. In the current situation, nobody has sufficient power, is able to act with sufficient speed, provide sufficient confidentiality, and has expertise, to deal with incidents. As an example, I reported a CoC incident about 7 months ago now, and have still not received a response other than a number of apologies for not sending a response. This is exactly due to the lack of process and clear responsibility.
But let us not create a new committee whose sole purpose is to sanction community members without any process!
I think this is partially addressed by the response guide linked above, which we should have published along with the CoC process. Perhaps this needs amendments. But the new proposal has much more process behind it than the current setup.
We should also make it clear that we do not tolerate any abuse of the code of conduct itself. I realise that can be interpreted as off-putting. However it is an essential part of such a code.
Do you have a suggested wording for this? I have intentionally avoided this in the past, because it risks discouraging reports, and getting people to report incidents is one of the hardest parts. Sasha
In addition to echoing Sasha's views here, I would also like to say that in principle, yes, all community members should intervene when they see CoC violations. However, in my own personal experience attending 20 RIPE Meetings over the past ten years, I have been groped more times than I'd like to count, asked for sex more times that I care to recall, and even at the last meeting, had a well-known and 'visible' community member make inappropriate sexual innuendos to my face. I remember in Madrid, when someone (who had previously been harassing women in Copenhagen) grabbed my wrist and dragged me off the dance floor and tried to convince he to leave with him (he didn't, I knew who he was and told him where to go). I told my male colleague about it the next day, who was right beside me the entire time and had no idea what had happened. He was totally shocked that this kind of stuff happens - which is something I've heard from a lot of men who I've spoken to over the years. I also told my manager what had happened the next day, he shrugged and replied "Well, what do you want me to do about it?" in front of colleagues. I quickly learned that the processes we had in place were woefully inadequate. So, no, expecting fellow attendees to intervene is not a solution, it's an ideal we should hope to aspire to one day. In the meantime, we need to ensure a safe space for all attendees and hard consequences for those who threaten that space. Amanda On 05/06/2019 12:20, Sasha Romijn wrote:
Hello Daniel,
Thanks for your extensive response.
Unless I’ve overlooked it, we did not include a mention of the proposed CoC response guide in the mail to ripe-list, which answers some of your questions, and I’ve responded to more things below.
The most recent draft of the response guide is on: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gaLo4axYDRTpQnhUJyG92EHBmEIkxSDN8Urmy-zn...
Instead, I suggest to a call on everyone in the community to actively intervene when they observe inappropriate behavior and to help all parties concerned to resolve the situation.
Although this is a good message in general, it is in my experience unlikely to have much effect. Speaking up, even if you are not the person directly affected by the incident, is a big step. It always involves some danger, especially when the person creating harm is in a position of power. The bystander effect also comes into play.
I would definitely be unlikely to speak up, because it’s usually too risky, and has too little chance to make a difference. Especially at a RIPE meeting right now, due to lack of an effective CoC process.
Also, “helping all parties to resolve the situation” is risky language, as it places a responsibility on the person being harmed to contribute to resolving the situation. In some incidents this may be appropriate, but in CoC teams I’ve been a part of, a fundamental point of all the process is that we place as little burden on the reporter as possible.
I suggest to maintain the current system of trusted contacts for reporting violations and add that staff and volunteers such as chairs and PC are also available. Where, by the way, is the evidence that this is not sufficient? Maybe the trusted contacts can provide some sort of transparency report to us?
Well, currently I wouldn’t consider reporting a CoC incident at a RIPE meeting, because why would I? None of the people you list are actually empowered to take any action, other than offer sympathies.
And how will these people make decisions? If I make a CoC report, will it be discussed by the entire PC, all chairs, and trusted contacts together? That is way too many people, and introduces many problems.
If you empower these people to actually take action, up to the unusually rare action of immediate removal from the conference, how does it solve the concerns you raise about a CoC team?
On a sidenote, this would also involve a requirement for training all PC members, WG chairs, and trusted contacts at CoC incident response.
Further I recommend to develop a response plan that defines who is responsible to take action in cases where individuals do not stop inappropriate behavior once it is pointed out to them.
Are you saying that people should always, in every incident, first have the behaviour pointed out, then re-violate, before more serious action can be taken?
These responsibilities do exist today within our governance structure. They are shared between RIPE, RIPE NCC and third parties such as the owners/operators of our venues. Maybe this needs to be clarified and we may need to establish roles within these structures that are responsible to follow up on any actions.
I’d argue that the current CoC process has way too many people kind of responsible, and therefore in the end nobody responsible. In the current situation, nobody has sufficient power, is able to act with sufficient speed, provide sufficient confidentiality, and has expertise, to deal with incidents.
As an example, I reported a CoC incident about 7 months ago now, and have still not received a response other than a number of apologies for not sending a response. This is exactly due to the lack of process and clear responsibility.
But let us not create a new committee whose sole purpose is to sanction community members without any process!
I think this is partially addressed by the response guide linked above, which we should have published along with the CoC process. Perhaps this needs amendments. But the new proposal has much more process behind it than the current setup.
We should also make it clear that we do not tolerate any abuse of the code of conduct itself. I realise that can be interpreted as off-putting. However it is an essential part of such a code.
Do you have a suggested wording for this? I have intentionally avoided this in the past, because it risks discouraging reports, and getting people to report incidents is one of the hardest parts.
Sasha
_______________________________________________ diversity mailing list diversity@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/diversity
I do understand Daniel’s concern, but the RIPE meetings are also getting larger and lager. My last meeting before 78 was 58, and that one was considered crowded. This one has maybe 200 people more and statistically seen, more chance in CoC sanctionable incidents. Having a good CoC in place and the means to act on them is key on keeping RIPE meetings a safe place, though I find “CoC response team” a better name than “enforcement committee”. In Sasha’s response guide it is noted that the team will not involve either venue security nor law enforcement unless they have consent from the person in trouble or when the person in trouble is undoubtedly in immediate danger. Yes, they also need act as a team and receive training as well as key event participators.
On 5 Jun 2019, at 12:51, Amanda Gowland <agowland@ripe.net> wrote:
In addition to echoing Sasha's views here, I would also like to say that in principle, yes, all community members should intervene when they see CoC violations.
However, in my own personal experience attending 20 RIPE Meetings over the past ten years, I have been groped more times than I'd like to count, asked for sex more times that I care to recall, and even at the last meeting, had a well-known and 'visible' community member make inappropriate sexual innuendos to my face.
Unfortunately, I can also remember some incidents from my time with the NCC that one staff member didn’t feel safe in her hotel room, and in another meeting another staff member felt too much chased by photographing attendees. In the latter I acted as a shield when she informed me.
I remember in Madrid, when someone (who had previously been harassing women in Copenhagen) grabbed my wrist and dragged me off the dance floor and tried to convince he to leave with him (he didn't, I knew who he was and told him where to go). I told my male colleague about it the next day, who was right beside me the entire time and had no idea what had happened. He was totally shocked that this kind of stuff happens - which is something I've heard from a lot of men who I've spoken to over the years.
Yes, I can unfortunately confirm this from personal experience. This can and will happen just under our eyes with no one noticing a thing. When going unchecked it will make the assailants feel empowered in their behaviour whereas the victims might think twice on returning to the meeting.
I also told my manager what had happened the next day, he shrugged and replied "Well, what do you want me to do about it?" in front of colleagues. I quickly learned that the processes we had in place were woefully inadequate.
I am sorry to hear this... hopefully this initiative gets that fixed...
So, no, expecting fellow attendees to intervene is not a solution, it's an ideal we should hope to aspire to one day. In the meantime, we need to ensure a safe space for all attendees and hard consequences for those who threaten that space.
Amanda
Ruben
Amanda, Shasha, Ruben, colleagues, thank you for reading and responding to my proposals. I took some time to reflect on your thoughts and here are some more thoughts of my own. Please do not interpret my contributions here as opposition to what you are trying to achieve or even as a denial of the necessity to improve. I agree that RIPE should be as diverse as possible and a safe place for everyone. We should strive for this in our open and transparent way and avoid taking dangerous shortcuts that will haunt us in the future. This is why I spend energy in this discussion and why I repeat my offer to help with better language. --- I proposed: "- The draft should encourage anyone in the community to actively intervene when they observe unacceptable behavior." I heard: - In practice this does not work. - People lack the courage. - Yes in an ideal world ... Further thoughts: My own observations are not much different. This is not getting better either. The bystander effect is real and it takes courage to intervene in such situations. Yet I remain convinced that the RIPE CoC should have as much active en*courage*ment as possible. We loose nothing by saying what kind of behavior we, as a community, would want to see. It would be bad not to say this at all because this would encourage people to look away because "someone else is responsible". So I am still convinced we should include language to encourage the community to intervene and not rely on someone else. Something like "We no it takes courage not to look the other way, but please act anyway. Here is how. Here is what you do to get help if you need it. Not looking away is what makes RIPE a safe place." ---- I proposed: "- It is a real bad idea to create a special enforcement committee. - It would be better to continue the current system of trusted contacts and empower them more." I heard: - The trusted contacts are powerless - The current structures are ineffective - It should be possible to sanction first violations. - How do we deal with violations by 'people in power'? Further thoughts/clarifications: I strongly suspect that the current scope of the trusted contacts is lacking; so we have no disagreement there at all. However we have not seen any sort of 'transparency report' from the trusted contacts that would allow for a good analysis. We need to hear from the trusted contacts and base our discussion on what they have to report and what they might suggest. I remain extremely concerned about empowering a vaguely described 'enforcement committee' with no other responsibility than sanctioning community members. Doing things like this, especially with the best of intentions, never ends well in my experience. History has a lot of pertinent examples too. Sanctioning needs careful consideration and due process. Decisions about sanctions should be made by people clearly legitimatized by the community. These people should have other community responsibilities beyond sanctioning in order to prevent a very undesirable focus and possible bias. We are talking about sanctions *in the name of the community*. The current language is much too vague. The emphasis needs to be on preventing and correcting unacceptable behavior and not on sanctioning it. Therefore I *do* believe that a community member who apologizes appropriately and does not repeat the unacceptable behavior should not be formally sanctioned *by the community*. The *community* then has no reason to sanction in this case. Other actions like criminal, employment and social ones are separate. Yes we need to make it easy for victims to report and get help. However we also need to prevent abuse of community processes. I totally agree that this is a difficult balance. I do not expect to find the perfect solution for this dilemma. The current language however gives the impression that anyone can accuse anyone with impunity, remain anonymous and have a good chance that something will at least stick to the accused. We need to do better than that. I realise that it is especially difficult to deal with unacceptable behavior if it involves a real or perceived power gradient. All we can do here is to make sure that the persons concerned are kept out of any decision process about their personal behavior. This can be done. So here is my revised proposal: - We should ask the current trusted contacts for a transparency report about their work so far. We should ask explicitly for their opinions about impediments to being effective. We should also ask them for suggestions for improvement. - Based on that and on the language we obtained from other communities we should develop a CoC specifically tailored to RIPE and a response process (not just a guide) that first aims at quickly resolving violations, then collection of evidence and then an agreed number of sanctions. Formal sanctions and the process to apply them need to be clearly specified. - We should *not* create a special group of people with the sole purpose of sanctioning community members for CoC violations. ;-) ;-) ;-) I remain white, male, 60+, slightly obese and diverse in many ways. ;-) ;-) ;-) Daniel
Hi all, Picking up on this particular point.
I strongly suspect that the current scope of the trusted contacts is lacking; so we have no disagreement there at all. However we have not seen any sort of 'transparency report' from the trusted contacts that would allow for a good analysis. We need to hear from the trusted contacts and base our discussion on what they have to report and what they might suggest.
As Trusted Contacts, our primary responsibility is confidentiality of the report to us. Our training was as a "vertrouwenspersoon," although fortunately for me that was the only part of the training that took place in Dutch. This makes the production of reports somewhat difficult as above all we do not want those who have reported an issue to us to feel they could be identified through that report -- or that in future they do not report an issue for fear of being identified (the simple act of writing down the report is even something to consider). We do report back to Hans Petter, and we are currently working on a report but with the figures quite abstracted as a result. If others that have been involved in similar work elsewhere have examples of the level of public report we could be producing, they would be welcome. So far, my suggestion is that it is no more detailed than something along the lines of the following categories: - "In-meeting behaviour"; - "Behaviour at social events"; - "Mailing list behaviour" The number of reports we do receive is, as that report will show, quite low. Cheers, Rob
Mirjam, Vesna, Rob, thank you very much for picking this up. I appreciate it very much because this is something all of you did not originally sign up for. Typing 'code of conduct transparency report' into your favourite search engine will give you some examples. I liked https://symfony.com/blog/symfony-code-of-conduct-transparency-report-2018 There are quite a number from djangocon where I assume much of the text in the current draft originates. Some of these are by-the-way also quite educational about what the current draft can lead to, like: "One of the lightning talks contained unfortunate phrasing directed towards one of the attendees. Video from that lightning talk won’t be published online." No mention of who decided this and how. Was it voluntary? This is the kind of censorship that we as a community should not want. Daniel On 13/06/2019 12:00, Rob Evans wrote:
Hi all,
Picking up on this particular point.
I strongly suspect that the current scope of the trusted contacts is lacking; so we have no disagreement there at all. However we have not seen any sort of 'transparency report' from the trusted contacts that would allow for a good analysis. We need to hear from the trusted contacts and base our discussion on what they have to report and what they might suggest.
As Trusted Contacts, our primary responsibility is confidentiality of the report to us. Our training was as a "vertrouwenspersoon," although fortunately for me that was the only part of the training that took place in Dutch.
This makes the production of reports somewhat difficult as above all we do not want those who have reported an issue to us to feel they could be identified through that report -- or that in future they do not report an issue for fear of being identified (the simple act of writing down the report is even something to consider).
We do report back to Hans Petter, and we are currently working on a report but with the figures quite abstracted as a result. If others that have been involved in similar work elsewhere have examples of the level of public report we could be producing, they would be welcome. So far, my suggestion is that it is no more detailed than something along the lines of the following categories:
- "In-meeting behaviour"; - "Behaviour at social events"; - "Mailing list behaviour"
The number of reports we do receive is, as that report will show, quite low.
Cheers, Rob
Hi,
On 14 Jun 2019, at 07:09, Daniel Karrenberg <dfk@ripe.net> wrote: Some of these are by-the-way also quite educational about what the current draft can lead to, like: "One of the lightning talks contained unfortunate phrasing directed towards one of the attendees. Video from that lightning talk won’t be published online." No mention of who decided this and how. Was it voluntary? This is the kind of censorship that we as a community should not want.
I don’t know which conference this was, but it does occasionally happen that a talk violates the CoC. Lightning talks are more at risk because they tend to have less screening. I don’t have the wider context, but I would expect that this decision was made by the local Code of Conduct team, according to the response guidelines for the conference. A Code of Conduct response can not require voluntary compliance from the reported person, as that would make the entire process entirely ineffective. It’s entirely possible the speaker accepted the decision, but even if they did not, that can’t be grounds for then just not taking action. People that are removed from venues also often do not agree with that decision, but that is a poor reason to just let them stay. Would you consider every case where a talk recording is not published, due to CoC violations, to be unwanted censorship? In general, the decision process can only be public to a limited extent, because otherwise it would risk harm to the involved parties. In cases I’ve handled myself, about 80% have the reported person entirely agree with the decision, which is always more pleasant. Those numbers may not translate to the RIPE community though, because the other communities I’ve worked in had done years of extensive inclusion work, whereas the RIPE community is just getting started on this.
The emphasis needs to be on preventing and correcting unacceptable behavior and not on sanctioning it. Therefore I *do* believe that a community member who apologizes appropriately and does not repeat the unacceptable behavior should not be formally sanctioned *by the community*. The *community* then has no reason to sanction in this case.
I don’t know if I’m understanding you correctly. There are currently a number of examples in the response guidelines that suggest immediate removal from the space is likely to be appropriate, such as physical assault including groping or punching someone. Are you saying that even in physical assault, there should be no formal sanction as long as there is only a single (known) case? Because that would mean all 700 attendees are essentially permitted to assault another person, as long as they only do it once? Even though these are usually crimes, criminal prosecution is not likely to be of any help for these cases - they have very little priority, and the first moment to make an appointment to file a police report is probably long after someone has already left the country. So either we enable a process to take action from the community, even the first time, with a very short decision time when needed, or we basically accept that physical assault is normal. Which is essentially the current situation, because our community is incapable of doing anything. Sasha
Dear all, here's my input, as a person with multiple roles (community member, RIPE NCC staff, a women-in-tech, a trained member of "trusted contacts" team, and a trained mediator... among other roles...). Reminder: link to draft code of conduct (I had to search for it..) : https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/ripe-meetings/ripe-meeting-code-of... Addressing only one aspect of Daniel's contribution: On 05/06/2019 10:34, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
I am very deeply concerned about the part of this draft that creates a very vaguely described 'enforcement committee' without any responsibility to anyone and without any process whatsoever.
and
RIPE is not a conference but a community that with a significant governance aspect.
It is my personal understanding that the "response team" will be formed in the similar ways that other "power structures" within RIPE community are created: - consisting OF the members of the community - selected (somehow) BY the members of the community - accountable TO the community This is how we (RIPE) choose working-group chairs and program committee members, too. We have mechanisms in place - and we *could* use the similar mechanisms. I have re-read both documents, and they do not cover the formation of "response team". I suggest that we add some such text to this document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gaLo4axYDRTpQnhUJyG92EHBmEIkxSDN8Urmy-zn... part of the text from here: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-600 (Charter of The RIPE Programme Committee) or here: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-692 (RIPE Working Group Chair Job Description and Procedures) In my opinion, that would give transparency, accountability, and clear "mandate" for this new "committee". It would also give a sense of continuity and a referral to "this is how we are used to do things". Daniel -- would this bring some reassurance to you, about the process? "task force", what do you think of this idea? Any volunteer to chose the _actual_ text?? As for the "where are the boundaries of the shared responsibilities":
Further I recommend to develop a response plan that defines who is responsible to take action in cases where individuals do not stop inappropriate behavior once it is pointed out to them. These responsibilities do exist today within our governance structure. They are shared between RIPE, RIPE NCC and third parties such as the owners/operators of our venues. Maybe this needs to be clarified and we may need to establish roles within these structures that are responsible to follow up on any actions.
I agree -- if there is a need for more clarity, then the proposed documentation might benefit from some improvements -- that's why we are still in the process of gathering input from multiple sides.
But let us not create a new committee whose sole purpose is to sanction community members without any process!
With this I disagree -- specially the part "without any process" -- because *the process* is very clearly defined in the documents: - the team members will receive training & guidance - the team members are following a detailed document about which "resolutions" are appropriate for which "incident" - the team members will consult each other & make decisions together In addition to the "letter", there is also a "spirit", IMO: - the team members are part of the community - they are contributing their efforts as volunteers - their intentions are to bring additional benefits to the community (to create safer atmosphere, to make it more comfortable to participate, to enable the inclusion of more diverse opinions and experiences, that in turn achieves more creativity in solutions -- with the final goal of making better decisions, creating better policies, products, procedures, BCPs, agreements, standards... ) I see, I got carried away with my dreams for the future of RIPE community :) I hope some of you find my suggestions practical, and I am interested in proposals on - how do we proceed? I wish that we have next results for the RIPE79 -- these meetings are natural milestones -- so can we have the next TF (online) meeting soon, to agree on the next steps and who will take on the action items? Regards, Vesna
Hello all, This thread has been quiet for a month now. How do we move forward with this? Sasha
So, I've been looking at this again, and reading the various comments and it's my impression that the sticking point is the enforcement, because we seem to agree on everything else? I mean, text that says "please call things out, don't be a bystander" is easy and fine, I think? But it also does not solve the problem. I think the core point here is that change is made and that asking everyone to do something will not be that change. So I fully agree we need some sort of group, as other communities have put in place, and I don't think spending a long time trying to gather data is the right way to go. Mostly because I think we have that data already. We are engineers, we can iterate, we can put this group together and if it fails, we can take it away again. I think we fool ourselves, as humans, into thinking that someone once there must always be there. Working Groups have changed, have gone away, lots of other structures and pieces of the RIPE Community have changed and will continue to change. So rather than continuing to try to see what's happening and then act, I very strongly suggest we act and then see what happens. We are a very strong community, we can take a little risk, so to speak. 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@heanet.ie www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270
-----Original Message----- From: diversity <diversity-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of Sasha Romijn Sent: Friday 19 July 2019 13:38 To: diversity@ripe.net Subject: Re: [diversity] RIPE Code of Conduct 2.0
Hello all,
This thread has been quiet for a month now. How do we move forward with this?
Sasha
_______________________________________________ diversity mailing list diversity@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/diversity
Fully agree with Brian, I think, the idea of having 'enforcement' in our community is a trigger in general and the instinct is to push against it. And there is definitely the very real fear that if there's an implicit expectation that 'we'll all do our best to make sure bad actors are stopped', then we could get into a situation where no one acts because they assume someone else must have already done. Would it help if I went over the documentation that Sasha has sent through and draft a proposal/call for volunteers/scope for a CoC Team to review now? a On 29/07/2019 10:12, Brian Nisbet wrote:
So, I've been looking at this again, and reading the various comments and it's my impression that the sticking point is the enforcement, because we seem to agree on everything else?
I mean, text that says "please call things out, don't be a bystander" is easy and fine, I think? But it also does not solve the problem.
I think the core point here is that change is made and that asking everyone to do something will not be that change. So I fully agree we need some sort of group, as other communities have put in place, and I don't think spending a long time trying to gather data is the right way to go. Mostly because I think we have that data already.
We are engineers, we can iterate, we can put this group together and if it fails, we can take it away again. I think we fool ourselves, as humans, into thinking that someone once there must always be there. Working Groups have changed, have gone away, lots of other structures and pieces of the RIPE Community have changed and will continue to change.
So rather than continuing to try to see what's happening and then act, I very strongly suggest we act and then see what happens. We are a very strong community, we can take a little risk, so to speak.
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@heanet.ie www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270
-----Original Message----- From: diversity <diversity-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of Sasha Romijn Sent: Friday 19 July 2019 13:38 To: diversity@ripe.net Subject: Re: [diversity] RIPE Code of Conduct 2.0
Hello all,
This thread has been quiet for a month now. How do we move forward with this?
Sasha
_______________________________________________ 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
Amanda, I would certainly be very much in favour of you doing that, please. 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@heanet.ie www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270
-----Original Message----- From: Amanda Gowland <agowland@ripe.net> Sent: Monday 29 July 2019 09:24 To: Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet@heanet.ie>; Sasha Romijn <sasha@mxsasha.eu>; diversity@ripe.net Subject: Re: [diversity] RIPE Code of Conduct 2.0
Fully agree with Brian,
I think, the idea of having 'enforcement' in our community is a trigger in general and the instinct is to push against it.
And there is definitely the very real fear that if there's an implicit expectation that 'we'll all do our best to make sure bad actors are stopped', then we could get into a situation where no one acts because they assume someone else must have already done.
Would it help if I went over the documentation that Sasha has sent through and draft a proposal/call for volunteers/scope for a CoC Team to review now?
a
So, I've been looking at this again, and reading the various comments and it's my impression that the sticking point is the enforcement, because we seem to agree on everything else?
I mean, text that says "please call things out, don't be a bystander" is easy and fine, I think? But it also does not solve the problem.
I think the core point here is that change is made and that asking everyone to do something will not be that change. So I fully agree we need some sort of group, as other communities have put in place, and I don't think spending a long time trying to gather data is the right way to go. Mostly because I think we have that data already.
We are engineers, we can iterate, we can put this group together and if it fails, we can take it away again. I think we fool ourselves, as humans, into
On 29/07/2019 10:12, Brian Nisbet wrote: thinking that someone once there must always be there. Working Groups have changed, have gone away, lots of other structures and pieces of the RIPE Community have changed and will continue to change.
So rather than continuing to try to see what's happening and then act, I
very strongly suggest we act and then see what happens. We are a very strong community, we can take a little risk, so to speak.
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@heanet.ie www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270
-----Original Message----- From: diversity <diversity-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of Sasha Romijn Sent: Friday 19 July 2019 13:38 To: diversity@ripe.net Subject: Re: [diversity] RIPE Code of Conduct 2.0
Hello all,
This thread has been quiet for a month now. How do we move forward
with
this?
Sasha
_______________________________________________ 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
On 29 Jul 2019, at 10:24, Amanda Gowland wrote:
Would it help if I went over the documentation that Sasha has sent through and draft a proposal/call for volunteers/scope for a CoC Team to review now?
That makes sense. Just make sure that it is abundantly clear that we are *not* calling for volunteers at this time. Daniel
On 29 Jul 2019, at 10:24, Amanda Gowland wrote:
Would it help if I went over the documentation that Sasha has sent through and draft a proposal/call for volunteers/scope for a CoC Team to review now?
That got away too quickly. To be perfectly clear: It is best to first write up what the role of members of the“enforcement committee” exactly is, specifically the powers to take action. I am also fine with making proposals about how we select people for these roles. Personally I would be happy for the Chair to appoint them for an initial period after a *separate* call for volunteers. This is fine for the first iteration. I do not think that a beauty contest is appropriate here. Colling for volunteers is *next*. I do not think we have finished the discussion about the Code of Conduct text either. It has the “enforcement committee” built in. So we can either split this into two docs or keep it in one. But we have to discuss *both* and get community consensus on the whole package. I do not care either way. Only after we have consensus do we call for volunteers. Once we have consensus the doc(s) should be published as ripe documents. Daniel
participants (7)
-
Amanda Gowland -
Brian Nisbet -
Daniel Karrenberg -
Rob Evans -
Ruben van Staveren -
Sasha Romijn -
Vesna Manojlovic