Updated Draft RIPE Code of Conduct Published for Community Review
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-c... 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-of... [2] Python Community Code of Conduct https://www.python.org/psf/conduct/
Dear RIPE community, There has been relatively little feedback on ths draft Code of Conduct so far. We would be grateful if you could 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. Many thanks, Leo Vegoda On behalf of the RIPE Code of Conduct TF On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 5:02 AM Leo Vegoda <leo@vegoda.org> wrote:
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-c...
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-of... [2] Python Community Code of Conduct https://www.python.org/psf/conduct/
Hi Leo, all, How come we can pretend that the RIPE community is open, inclusive, transparent, etc., if when we do this kind of work, we don't allow volunteer participants to join? How come we can have a CoC that must be respected by all if since day one on the work for this, somebody that volunteered has been excluded? Let me explain, because only the chairs and the CoC TF knows the context of this up to now. On October 26th I asked to join the mailing list and the CoC TF. I got a response on 9th November. In my request, I explained that I've made similar work in other RIRs (in that case via policy proposals, still under discussion), and I was during around 12 years the Sergeant-at-arms of the IETF (RFC3005), so clearly, I've some experience on this work. In the response I was told that the Chairs Team decided about the membership and the CoC TF is not "empowered" to expand its own membership. So, in summary, we can't enforce a CoC that has been generated in a non-inclusive and in fact discriminatory way. There was not any information, when the Task Force was created about "rules of participation", "timing" or anything similar, and of course, there is NOTHING in our existing rules, documents, etc., that provides chair or Task Force members the right to EXCLUDE and DISCRIMINATE anyone. I've asked several times to the CoC TF and the chairs about that, and the response, as it has been in other topics such as the violation of the PDP has been "silence". In Spanish we call this a "theater" or "mummery", I'm not sure if that expression makes sense in English. We continuously talk about openness, transparency and so on, but in reality, we have the chairs that do whatever they want, without respecting rules (or actually, creating their own rules) and ignoring volunteer participants. This is the way we want to encourage participation for long-term participants? How come newcomers will trust that. Let's be serious. So, is this about getting only "friends" in a TF? How come we can pretend to be inclusive? I don't know in other countries, but in Spain, if you exclude someone from a group or "club", without a clear previous explanation and engagement rules, which of course, can't be against law, it is called a discrimination, and it is an illegal act. Besides that, which clearly should have a public and a clear explanation provided (documents that authorize to exclude volunteers from a TF, documents that allow chairs to ignore and don't publish policy proposals, etc.), I've the following points. 0) Generic. I think every section/sub-section must be numbered, it helps to follow the document, provide inputs, etc. 1) Rationale. I think it must be made explicit not only inclusivity, but also a right balance with freedom of expression, openness, transparency and respect to each participant language barriers and cultural differences. 2) Scope. The mailing list have the "forums" as an alternative way to participate. I will not call that a messaging or chat. Maybe you should add a bullet to cover any "communication app or web service". That will cover, I think any way to communicate. Maybe with that wording is no longer necessary to use "messaging or chat" but it is still helpful spell it out. 3) Scope. I don't understand why the PC needs to be consulted. Anything related to the RIPE community must support the same CoC. Otherwise, we need to define an AUP for the mailings list CoC for "a", CoC for "b", etc. If the goal is to be generic for anything related to the community, this doesn't make sense to me. 4) People. When you say "contracted workers", is that including "subcontractors" or need to be spelled out? 5) CoC and National Law. "The CoC Team or RIPE NCC staff may relay the report or make their own if necessary" I don't think this is a matter for the CoC Team, instead the CoC Team must report those cases to the RIPE NCC staff, and the RIPE NCC, must report to authorities. Otherwise, if the NCC has knowledge of a possible illegal activity, is acting as against the law and acting as an abettor and it may have some liability. If an individual knowing about an illegal activity doesn't report it, it is his/her own problem, but in the case of an organization, it is a problem for all the involved "members", board, staff, etc. 6) Unacceptable. We are missing language discrimination. We can't allow that non-native speakers have difficulties to understand what is being discussed or said, because, we have seen that already in several occasions, "presumed jokes or jargon" are frequently used as attacks to non-native speakers. 7) Unacceptable. I don't think "calling people names" is clear for non-native speakers. Is that not include in "insulting"? If telling someone "fat" is within your understanding of "calling people names", it is the same as insulting. In my opinion, having a CoC that uses a non-inclusive language, it is a very bad sign of what we want to enforce ... Is not that bullying? I think it may be clearer to use "Insulting or bullying someone in anyway", instead of "insulting someone" and then you don't need the "calling people names". Note that my comment here may be wrong because I'm not even sure myself about what it means "calling people names". 8) Unacceptable. "Deliberately outing private details about someone without their consent" I will suggest replacing with "Deliberately outing personal data about someone without their consent" I think it is including "more" aspects. Again, this may be my English understanding from how I will say that in Spanish. 9) Unacceptable. "Pushing someone to drink or take drugs". I understand that it is a way to make it explicit, but pushing someone to smoke or eat something that he/she doesn't likes/wants, is the same. Maybe a more generic sentence such as "Pushing someone to do any action that he/she doesn't want". 10) I'm missing a few things which I believe are extremely important and should be made explicit: a) Spam, non-solicited information, collecting emails from participant. b) Using language or expression that non-native may not understand. c) On the other way around, the CoC Team should consider cultural and language differences, otherwise they may miss-interpret something that I'm saying following my native language or common cultural ways and apply wrongly the CoC. 11) I'm also missing something that I believe is key to have included in the same document. What actions can be taken in case of CoC violation. Can those be progressive? For example, if you send an unsolicited email to a list, or interrupt someone presentation, a first-time warning should be sufficient, but if you insist, in the case of a mailing list or similar "communication mean", you may restrict posting rights or moderate for a certain number of weeks and if it comes back, progressively increase the restriction period. In a meeting, or videoconference, you just ask him/her to abandon that session or the full meeting? In fact, as more I think about that, I believe that the reporting procedures, CoC Team and actions against the violation of the CoC should be in the same document. If not, every section and especially unacceptable behaviors should be numbered, because I don't think all the actions may have the same level of "severity". Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 18/3/21 18:22, "ripe-list en nombre de Leo Vegoda" <ripe-list-bounces@ripe.net en nombre de leo@vegoda.org> escribió: Dear RIPE community, There has been relatively little feedback on ths draft Code of Conduct so far. We would be grateful if you could 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. Many thanks, Leo Vegoda On behalf of the RIPE Code of Conduct TF On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 5:02 AM Leo Vegoda <leo@vegoda.org> wrote: > > 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-c... > > 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-of... > [2] Python Community Code of Conduct https://www.python.org/psf/conduct/ ********************************************** 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.
Dear RIPE Community, I'd like to thank everyone who has already commented on this draft update to the Code of Conduct so far. I have been keeping track of the comments so the TF has a good idea of what changes we need to make to the draft. I've tabulated them below and it would be good if people could let me know if I have misunderstood what they meant. Also, some people have commented but not stated if they support the daft as is, or would support the draft with a minor change. I've placed a question mark next to names where I'm not sure what a person's position is. It would be great if you could clarify your position. Many thanks, Leo Vegoda On behalf of the RIPE Code of Conduct TF Commenter Support Comment or Delta Eileen Gallagher ✓ Add: acknowledgments of earlier work done by others when presenting new work Add: thanking people for their contribution as an example of positive behaviour Comment: RIPE NCC might want to incorporate the CoC into contracts with venues Randy Bush ✓ Keep the CoC tight Vesna Manojlovic ✓ Add: definition of the CoC Team Add: call to action Nit: Add date and authors Nit: Change “for more than quarter of a century” to “since 1989” Nit: make the URL ripe.net/coc Nit: Rename "Behaviour" title to "Inclusive Behaviour" or another alternative Nit: "people protected" -> remove bullet points, make it a CSV line of text Gert Doering ✓ — Maximilian Wilhelm ✓ — Daniel Karrenberg ✓ Focus more on principles and make it even clearer that the lists are examples and not comprehensive Do not give the PC a special role Nit: Change “national laws” to “laws” Nit: ONly talk about roles and organisations in the community in general terms Stated that the obligation to report crimes is very limited JORDI PALET MARTINEZ ? Nit: Number all sections Rationale must balance inclusivity against freedom of speech and cultural differences Include all ways of communicating over the Internet Does not understand why the PC needs to be consulted Does contracted workers include subcontractors? Wants the RIPE NCC staff to always intermediate if a report is made to the police and understands that there could be liability if people know of an incident and do not report it Add protection for those who do not speak English as a first language Does not think "calling people names" is clear for non-native speakers Rephrase “Deliberately outing private details about someone without their consent” Rephrase “Pushing someone to drink or take drugs” Add a prohibition against spam Forbid using language a non-native speaker might misunderstand Similarly, the CoC Team should accommodate cultural differences Wants the process in the same document Sasha Romijn ? Question about how the team would determine if an act should be reported to the police and a preference for that to be controlled by the subject of the act Jim Reid ? Supports Sasha on police report issue Sander Steffann ? Supports Sasha on police report issue Gergana Petrova ? Clarification on making a police report Echoes the question about the role of the PC (see above) Rob Evans ? Trusted Contacts training gave him the understanding that there is no obligation to make police reports. Trusted Contacts are confidential contacts Fearghas Mckay ? Confidentiality and control are important in helping people have the confidence to make a report
Hi Leo, Apologies for not being clear. I support the draft as is with the change of removing the PC role. You can put me as a ✓ in the table. Cheers, Gergana On 29/03/2021 10:30, Leo Vegoda wrote:
Dear RIPE Community,
I'd like to thank everyone who has already commented on this draft update to the Code of Conduct so far.
I have been keeping track of the comments so the TF has a good idea of what changes we need to make to the draft. I've tabulated them below and it would be good if people could let me know if I have misunderstood what they meant. Also, some people have commented but not stated if they support the daft as is, or would support the draft with a minor change. I've placed a question mark next to names where I'm not sure what a person's position is. It would be great if you could clarify your position.
Many thanks,
Leo Vegoda On behalf of the RIPE Code of Conduct TF
Commenter
Support
Comment or Delta
Eileen Gallagher
✓
Add: acknowledgments of earlier work done by others when presenting new work
Add: thanking people for their contribution as an example of positive behaviour
Comment: RIPE NCC might want to incorporate the CoC into contracts with venues
Randy Bush
✓
Keep the CoC tight
Vesna Manojlovic
✓
Add: definition of the CoC Team
Add: call to action
Nit: Add date and authors
Nit: Change “for more than quarter of a century” to “since 1989”
Nit: make the URL ripe.net/coc <http://ripe.net/coc>
Nit: Rename "Behaviour" title to "Inclusive Behaviour" or another alternative
Nit: "people protected" -> remove bullet points, make it a CSV line of text
Gert Doering
✓
—
Maximilian Wilhelm
✓
—
Daniel Karrenberg
✓
Focus more on principles and make it even clearer that the lists are examples and not comprehensive
Do not give the PC a special role
Nit: Change “national laws” to “laws”
Nit: ONly talk about roles and organisations in the community in general terms
Stated that the obligation to report crimes is very limited
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
?
Nit: Number all sections
Rationale must balance inclusivity against freedom of speech and cultural differences
Include all ways of communicating over the Internet
Does not understand why the PC needs to be consulted
Does contracted workers include subcontractors?
Wants the RIPE NCC staff to always intermediate if a report is made to the police and understands that there could be liability if people know of an incident and do not report it
Add protection for those who do not speak English as a first language
Does not think "calling people names" is clear for non-native speakers
Rephrase “Deliberately outing private details about someone without their consent”
Rephrase “Pushing someone to drink or take drugs”
Add a prohibition against spam
Forbid using language a non-native speaker might misunderstand
Similarly, the CoC Team should accommodate cultural differences
Wants the process in the same document
Sasha Romijn
?
Question about how the team would determine if an act should be reported to the police and a preference for that to be controlled by the subject of the act
Jim Reid
?
Supports Sasha on police report issue
Sander Steffann
?
Supports Sasha on police report issue
Gergana Petrova
?
Clarification on making a police report
Echoes the question about the role of the PC (see above)
Rob Evans
?
Trusted Contacts training gave him the understanding that there is no obligation to make police reports. Trusted Contacts are confidential contacts
Fearghas Mckay
?
Confidentiality and control are important in helping people have the confidence to make a report
_______________________________________________ diversity mailing list diversity@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/diversity
Hi Leo, all, I can’t support the document at this stage, because the points I mention. Possibly they can be accommodated and then I will be happy to support. To state it clearly: Note that my disagreement with the discrimination at the participation of the TF is no a blocking to my support position. On this regards I’m still unable to find the discussion of that participation in the minutes/mail archive, so that needs to be clarified. I will try to re-read all the mail archive today, not just because this, but also in case any of my objections is related to the TF discussions and I could have a different perspective or point to something else. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 29/3/21 10:32, "ripe-list en nombre de Leo Vegoda" <ripe-list-bounces@ripe.net en nombre de leo@vegoda.org> escribió: Dear RIPE Community, I'd like to thank everyone who has already commented on this draft update to the Code of Conduct so far. I have been keeping track of the comments so the TF has a good idea of what changes we need to make to the draft. I've tabulated them below and it would be good if people could let me know if I have misunderstood what they meant. Also, some people have commented but not stated if they support the daft as is, or would support the draft with a minor change. I've placed a question mark next to names where I'm not sure what a person's position is. It would be great if you could clarify your position. Many thanks, Leo Vegoda On behalf of the RIPE Code of Conduct TF CommenterSupportComment or Delta Eileen Gallagher✓Add: acknowledgments of earlier work done by others when presenting new workAdd: thanking people for their contribution as an example of positive behaviourComment: RIPE NCC might want to incorporate the CoC into contracts with venues Randy Bush✓Keep the CoC tight Vesna Manojlovic✓Add: definition of the CoC TeamAdd: call to actionNit: Add date and authorsNit: Change “for more than quarter of a century” to “since 1989”Nit: make the URL ripe.net/cocNit: Rename "Behaviour" title to "Inclusive Behaviour" or another alternativeNit: "people protected" -> remove bullet points, make it a CSV line of text Gert Doering✓— Maximilian Wilhelm✓— Daniel Karrenberg✓Focus more on principles and make it even clearer that the lists are examples and not comprehensiveDo not give the PC a special role Nit: Change “national laws” to “laws”Nit: ONly talk about roles and organisations in the community in general termsStated that the obligation to report crimes is very limited JORDI PALET MARTINEZ?Nit: Number all sectionsRationale must balance inclusivity against freedom of speech and cultural differencesInclude all ways of communicating over the InternetDoes not understand why the PC needs to be consultedDoes contracted workers include subcontractors?Wants the RIPE NCC staff to always intermediate if a report is made to the police and understands that there could be liability if people know of an incident and do not report itAdd protection for those who do not speak English as a first languageDoes not think "calling people names" is clear for non-native speakersRephrase “Deliberately outing private details about someone without their consent”Rephrase “Pushing someone to drink or take drugs”Add a prohibition against spamForbid using language a non-native speaker might misunderstandSimilarly, the CoC Team should accommodate cultural differencesWants the process in the same document Sasha Romijn?Question about how the team would determine if an act should be reported to the police and a preference for that to be controlled by the subject of the act Jim Reid?Supports Sasha on police report issue Sander Steffann?Supports Sasha on police report issue Gergana Petrova?Clarification on making a police reportEchoes the question about the role of the PC (see above) Rob Evans?Trusted Contacts training gave him the understanding that there is no obligation to make police reports. Trusted Contacts are confidential contacts Fearghas Mckay?Confidentiality and control are important in helping people have the confidence to make a report ********************************************** 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.
On 29 Mar 2021, at 10:30, Leo Vegoda wrote:
… I have been keeping track of the comments so the TF has a good idea of what changes we need to make to the draft. I've tabulated them below and it would be good if people could let me know if I have misunderstood what they meant. …
This is an excellent way of making progress. I’ll emulate it in the future. Well done! You have understood me correctly. I support the suggestions of Eileen, Randy, Vesna, Sasha and Fearghas. In particular I support Vesna’s suggestion that you paraphrased as “call to action”. Daniel
Hello Leo, I’m fine with the current draft if the comment I made is addressed (and depending on how comments from others are integrated). “Support” feels like a big word, because this document is functionally incomplete without the other documents. I know that splitting into parts is the process that has been decided on, so that’s not something we can easily change now. Sasha
On 29 Mar 2021, at 10:30, Leo Vegoda <leo@vegoda.org> wrote:
Dear RIPE Community,
I'd like to thank everyone who has already commented on this draft update to the Code of Conduct so far.
I have been keeping track of the comments so the TF has a good idea of what changes we need to make to the draft. I've tabulated them below and it would be good if people could let me know if I have misunderstood what they meant. Also, some people have commented but not stated if they support the daft as is, or would support the draft with a minor change. I've placed a question mark next to names where I'm not sure what a person's position is. It would be great if you could clarify your position.
Many thanks,
Leo Vegoda On behalf of the RIPE Code of Conduct TF
Commenter Support Comment or Delta Eileen Gallagher ✓ Add: acknowledgments of earlier work done by others when presenting new work Add: thanking people for their contribution as an example of positive behaviour Comment: RIPE NCC might want to incorporate the CoC into contracts with venues Randy Bush ✓ Keep the CoC tight Vesna Manojlovic ✓ Add: definition of the CoC Team Add: call to action Nit: Add date and authors Nit: Change “for more than quarter of a century” to “since 1989” Nit: make the URL ripe.net/coc <http://ripe.net/coc> Nit: Rename "Behaviour" title to "Inclusive Behaviour" or another alternative Nit: "people protected" -> remove bullet points, make it a CSV line of text Gert Doering ✓ — Maximilian Wilhelm ✓ — Daniel Karrenberg ✓ Focus more on principles and make it even clearer that the lists are examples and not comprehensive Do not give the PC a special role Nit: Change “national laws” to “laws” Nit: ONly talk about roles and organisations in the community in general terms Stated that the obligation to report crimes is very limited JORDI PALET MARTINEZ ? Nit: Number all sections Rationale must balance inclusivity against freedom of speech and cultural differences Include all ways of communicating over the Internet Does not understand why the PC needs to be consulted Does contracted workers include subcontractors? Wants the RIPE NCC staff to always intermediate if a report is made to the police and understands that there could be liability if people know of an incident and do not report it Add protection for those who do not speak English as a first language Does not think "calling people names" is clear for non-native speakers Rephrase “Deliberately outing private details about someone without their consent” Rephrase “Pushing someone to drink or take drugs” Add a prohibition against spam Forbid using language a non-native speaker might misunderstand Similarly, the CoC Team should accommodate cultural differences Wants the process in the same document Sasha Romijn ? Question about how the team would determine if an act should be reported to the police and a preference for that to be controlled by the subject of the act Jim Reid ? Supports Sasha on police report issue Sander Steffann ? Supports Sasha on police report issue Gergana Petrova ? Clarification on making a police report Echoes the question about the role of the PC (see above) Rob Evans ? Trusted Contacts training gave him the understanding that there is no obligation to make police reports. Trusted Contacts are confidential contacts Fearghas Mckay ? Confidentiality and control are important in helping people have the confidence to make a report
_______________________________________________ diversity mailing list diversity@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/diversity
Very good point. I don’t agree with the “split”, I think it increases complexity instead of simplifying it, as I already mention, however if this is made in order to facilitate the work, etc., I will consent on that. That said, to be acceptable, I think we need to a couple of things: Number sections/sub-sections (to facilitate reading/inputs and so we can make cross-references, if needed across documents). Reach consensus in the documents as a “set”, not one by one, because I feel that some of the discussions, wording, etc., in one document can have important impact in the others. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 30/3/21 11:29, "diversity en nombre de Sasha Romijn" <diversity-bounces@ripe.net en nombre de sasha@mxsasha.eu> escribió: Hello Leo, I’m fine with the current draft if the comment I made is addressed (and depending on how comments from others are integrated). “Support” feels like a big word, because this document is functionally incomplete without the other documents. I know that splitting into parts is the process that has been decided on, so that’s not something we can easily change now. Sasha On 29 Mar 2021, at 10:30, Leo Vegoda <leo@vegoda.org> wrote: Dear RIPE Community, I'd like to thank everyone who has already commented on this draft update to the Code of Conduct so far. I have been keeping track of the comments so the TF has a good idea of what changes we need to make to the draft. I've tabulated them below and it would be good if people could let me know if I have misunderstood what they meant. Also, some people have commented but not stated if they support the daft as is, or would support the draft with a minor change. I've placed a question mark next to names where I'm not sure what a person's position is. It would be great if you could clarify your position. Many thanks, Leo Vegoda On behalf of the RIPE Code of Conduct TF Commenter SupportComment or Delta Eileen Gallagher ✓Add: acknowledgments of earlier work done by others when presenting new work Add: thanking people for their contribution as an example of positive behaviour Comment: RIPE NCC might want to incorporate the CoC into contracts with venues Randy Bush ✓Keep the CoC tight Vesna Manojlovic ✓Add: definition of the CoC Team Add: call to action Nit: Add date and authors Nit: Change “for more than quarter of a century” to “since 1989” Nit: make the URL ripe.net/coc Nit: Rename "Behaviour" title to "Inclusive Behaviour" or another alternative Nit: "people protected" -> remove bullet points, make it a CSV line of text Gert Doering ✓— Maximilian Wilhelm ✓— Daniel Karrenberg ✓Focus more on principles and make it even clearer that the lists are examples and not comprehensive Do not give the PC a special role Nit: Change “national laws” to “laws” Nit: ONly talk about roles and organisations in the community in general terms Stated that the obligation to report crimes is very limited JORDI PALET MARTINEZ ?Nit: Number all sections Rationale must balance inclusivity against freedom of speech and cultural differences Include all ways of communicating over the Internet Does not understand why the PC needs to be consulted Does contracted workers include subcontractors? Wants the RIPE NCC staff to always intermediate if a report is made to the police and understands that there could be liability if people know of an incident and do not report it Add protection for those who do not speak English as a first language Does not think "calling people names" is clear for non-native speakers Rephrase “Deliberately outing private details about someone without their consent” Rephrase “Pushing someone to drink or take drugs” Add a prohibition against spam Forbid using language a non-native speaker might misunderstand Similarly, the CoC Team should accommodate cultural differences Wants the process in the same document Sasha Romijn ?Question about how the team would determine if an act should be reported to the police and a preference for that to be controlled by the subject of the act Jim Reid ?Supports Sasha on police report issue Sander Steffann ?Supports Sasha on police report issue Gergana Petrova ?Clarification on making a police report Echoes the question about the role of the PC (see above) Rob Evans ?Trusted Contacts training gave him the understanding that there is no obligation to make police reports. Trusted Contacts are confidential contacts Fearghas Mckay ?Confidentiality and control are important in helping people have the confidence to make a report _______________________________________________ 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 ********************************************** 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.
Dear Leo and RIPE Code of Conduct TF, Thank you for writing the RIPE Code of Conduct draft. We think it is concise and very clear. We have some suggestions for textual changes for the TF's consideration. We understand that "wordsmithing" can be a pitfall for progressing a document, so please consider our email as a sign of support for the document and the suggestions as improvements. Two points we mention have already been addressed by Gergana and Sasha, see the comments below. Section Introduction: Suggestion: “diversity of views” --> “diversity in views and people” to appreciate the diversity in attendees. Section Rationale: “To help everyone feel safe and included” --> “To make everyone feel safe and included” This may look subtle, but “help” suggests that people have some issue or problem they need to be assisted with, and makes it sound to me like the problem is with them. Changing this to “make” shifts the burden to the community rather than the individual. “...a CoC sets clear expectations in terms of how people should behave.” --> could be more active, e.g.: “...a CoC makes clear how we expect people to conduct themselves.” or “...a CoC makes clear how we expect people to behave.” Section Scope: “Unofficial social events organised by RIPE Meeting attendees or their employers within the meeting venue” --> the “within the meeting venue” seems legalese to us in the sense that it could be said to be within the responsibility and bailiwick of RIPE. Given that a CoC is not a legal document, we would say something that is wider, e.g. “Unofficial social events organised by RIPE Meeting attendees or their employers within the context and spirit of the meeting” -- many side events are not in the meeting venue, but they clearly would not have happened had there not been a RIPE meeting. As already mentioned by Gergana in a previous email, why does the PC have the final say in whether the CoC is applied? The CoC should be carried by the community and should always apply, not ifs, no buts. “This CoC does not apply to events or interactions that are managed by other organisations or communities.” --> legalese, not needed, this is self evident, because the inclusive scope of the CoC is clearly defined at the start. Legalese does not belong in a CoC, it is not a contract. Section People and Organisations Bound and Protected by the Code: Making a list of people the CoC applies to is risky, since such a list can never be complete. Why have a list at all? Make it simpler: “This CoC equally applies to participants in the RIPE community, officers of the RIPE community and RIPE NCC staff members.” Section CoC and National Law: “The CoC Team or RIPE NCC staff may relay the report or make their own if necessary.” --> the last part “or make their own if necessary”, no matter how well-intended, incurs the risk of a serious breach of trust. This has also been argued by Sasha in an earlier email, and we fully endorse Sasha's wording in this regard. We realise this is a point that may lead to a lot of discussion, we would strongly advocate that anyone who acts in a role of trust w.r.t. this CoC be properly and regularly trained to deal with this kind of situation. Regards, Roland van Rijswijk-Deij Benno Overeinder On 18/03/2021 18:21, Leo Vegoda wrote:
Dear RIPE community,
There has been relatively little feedback on ths draft Code of Conduct so far. We would be grateful if you could 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.
Many thanks,
Leo Vegoda On behalf of the RIPE Code of Conduct TF
On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 5:02 AM Leo Vegoda <leo@vegoda.org> wrote:
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-c...
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-of... [2] Python Community Code of Conduct https://www.python.org/psf/conduct/
-- Benno J. Overeinder NLnet Labs https://www.nlnetlabs.nl/
Hi, TL;DR I am okay with it as is but it could certainly be better in some places. And my stance may change depending on if it gets changed by feedback from others. I agree with much of what has been brought up by Benno, Sasha, and others. But I would really like to emphasize that the part about that the CoC should always be applied and the PC (or anyone else including the RIPE Chair) should not have a say in if it should be applied or not. -Cynthia On Fri, Apr 2, 2021 at 2:06 PM Benno Overeinder <benno@nlnetlabs.nl> wrote:
Dear Leo and RIPE Code of Conduct TF,
Thank you for writing the RIPE Code of Conduct draft. We think it is concise and very clear. We have some suggestions for textual changes for the TF's consideration.
We understand that "wordsmithing" can be a pitfall for progressing a document, so please consider our email as a sign of support for the document and the suggestions as improvements. Two points we mention have already been addressed by Gergana and Sasha, see the comments below.
Section Introduction:
Suggestion: “diversity of views” --> “diversity in views and people” to appreciate the diversity in attendees.
Section Rationale:
“To help everyone feel safe and included” --> “To make everyone feel safe and included” This may look subtle, but “help” suggests that people have some issue or problem they need to be assisted with, and makes it sound to me like the problem is with them. Changing this to “make” shifts the burden to the community rather than the individual.
“...a CoC sets clear expectations in terms of how people should behave.” --> could be more active, e.g.: “...a CoC makes clear how we expect people to conduct themselves.” or “...a CoC makes clear how we expect people to behave.”
Section Scope:
“Unofficial social events organised by RIPE Meeting attendees or their employers within the meeting venue” --> the “within the meeting venue” seems legalese to us in the sense that it could be said to be within the responsibility and bailiwick of RIPE. Given that a CoC is not a legal document, we would say something that is wider, e.g. “Unofficial social events organised by RIPE Meeting attendees or their employers within the context and spirit of the meeting” -- many side events are not in the meeting venue, but they clearly would not have happened had there not been a RIPE meeting.
As already mentioned by Gergana in a previous email, why does the PC have the final say in whether the CoC is applied? The CoC should be carried by the community and should always apply, not ifs, no buts.
“This CoC does not apply to events or interactions that are managed by other organisations or communities.” --> legalese, not needed, this is self evident, because the inclusive scope of the CoC is clearly defined at the start. Legalese does not belong in a CoC, it is not a contract.
Section People and Organisations Bound and Protected by the Code:
Making a list of people the CoC applies to is risky, since such a list can never be complete. Why have a list at all? Make it simpler: “This CoC equally applies to participants in the RIPE community, officers of the RIPE community and RIPE NCC staff members.”
Section CoC and National Law:
“The CoC Team or RIPE NCC staff may relay the report or make their own if necessary.” --> the last part “or make their own if necessary”, no matter how well-intended, incurs the risk of a serious breach of trust. This has also been argued by Sasha in an earlier email, and we fully endorse Sasha's wording in this regard.
We realise this is a point that may lead to a lot of discussion, we would strongly advocate that anyone who acts in a role of trust w.r.t. this CoC be properly and regularly trained to deal with this kind of situation.
Regards,
Roland van Rijswijk-Deij Benno Overeinder
On 18/03/2021 18:21, Leo Vegoda wrote:
Dear RIPE community,
There has been relatively little feedback on ths draft Code of Conduct so far. We would be grateful if you could 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.
Many thanks,
Leo Vegoda On behalf of the RIPE Code of Conduct TF
On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 5:02 AM Leo Vegoda <leo@vegoda.org> wrote:
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-c...
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-of... [2] Python Community Code of Conduct https://www.python.org/psf/conduct/
-- Benno J. Overeinder NLnet Labs https://www.nlnetlabs.nl/
_______________________________________________ diversity mailing list diversity@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/diversity
Leo, TF people, Thank you for coming up with a good and concise code. In particular I like the separation of ‘code’ from ‘enforcement’. This is a good way forward! Here are a few general suggestions. I will make some concrete text suggestions in a separate message soon. 1. I have the feeling that both applicability and behaviours can be described even more concisely: focus even more on the principles and separate them even more clearly from the long lists of examples. Call out the examples specifically as ‘examples’ illustrating the principles; do not write ’includes but is not limited’. 2. Heed Vesna’s suggestion to spell out expected behavior in the face of CoC violations in general terms. I understand that you want to separate ‘enforcement’ from the code, but doing this describing enforcement. As much as the code can speak to unacceptable behaviour it can speak about desired behavior … in general terms. I agree with Vesna that this is empowering and also demanding individual action, which is good. 3. Do not give the PC a special role. The whole paragraph is out of place and suddenly mentioning the RIPE NCC too. It almost looks like someone forgot to delete it from a previous version. Keep formal roles and ‘enforcement’ out of this as much as possible. 4. Do not speak about ‘national laws’, just about ‘laws’. Do not refer to ‘the authorities’ but rather to ‘law enforcement in the appropriate jurisdiction(s)’. There suddenly is mention of the CoC team out of the blue in that paragraph too. Another leftover? 5. If you feel that you have to mention roles and organisations in our community, do so in general terms. It may be worth mentioning that there will be different documents describing ‘support’, ’enforcement’ and ‘sanction’ roles with regard to the CoC and that multiple roles already exist complementing each other. Examples: RIPE Chairs, RIPE NCC, WG Chairs, PC, Trusted Contacts, … . Again: Thank you all very much for the good work! Daniel On 4 Mar 2021, at 14:02, Leo Vegoda wrote:
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-c...
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-of... [2] Python Community Code of Conduct https://www.python.org/psf/conduct/
_______________________________________________ diversity mailing list diversity@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/diversity
Hello Leo, On 4 Mar 2021, at 14:02, Leo Vegoda <leo@vegoda.org> wrote:
https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-documents/other-documents/ripe-c...
Thanks for your work on this! I think it’s an important step forward. The new proposal says:
If the RIPE CoC Team is alerted to acts that should be reported to the authorities, it will ask the reporter to do so. The CoC Team or RIPE NCC staff may relay the report or make their own if necessary.
How will the team determine whether or not an act should be reported to the authorities? And when is it “necessary” for the CoC team or RIPE NCC staff to make their own report? 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. For the CoC team or RIPE NCC staff to do that without a request and without consent would be a serious breach of trust. Many people may have many different reasons to not involve the police or other authorities in a situation, and they should still be able to report CoC issues. This should be explicit policy. Sasha
participants (7)
-
Benno Overeinder -
Cynthia Revström -
Daniel Karrenberg -
Gergana Petrova -
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ -
Leo Vegoda -
Sasha Romijn