Hi all, Please find attached a draft proposal for the CoC Team: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yqOUPR02SONuSt812cuOBkk_xnhjYzjdk9qmsJkc... I used Sasha's draft as the framework for the doc, just adding/editing where necessary. There are some to-be-determined factors, mainly: - How long should a term be for volunteers? - How many people (minimum, maximum) should we aim for? - What is the time-frame for response (e.g. how long would a reporter need to wait for a confirmation of receipt from the team?) Please add your comments. Kind regards, Amanda
I think it would be good to have 3 to 4 persons onboard all the time. To have familiar faces a term of between 2 to 6 ripe meetings would be good. Eventually there should be a mixture people who are new on the team aswell as people already serving for a while and can act as mentors. As for the reporting time within the same day, preferably before the end of that day's agenda. For issues during socials, at least acknowledge that the response team has it under cover and will provide a report probably before noon next day. Does that sound reasonable? On 2019-08-05 14:15, Amanda Gowland wrote:
Hi all,
Please find attached a draft proposal for the CoC Team: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yqOUPR02SONuSt812cuOBkk_xnhjYzjdk9qmsJkc...
I used Sasha's draft as the framework for the doc, just adding/editing where necessary.
There are some to-be-determined factors, mainly:
- How long should a term be for volunteers? - How many people (minimum, maximum) should we aim for? - What is the time-frame for response (e.g. how long would a reporter need to wait for a confirmation of receipt from the team?)
Please add your comments.
Kind regards,
Amanda
_______________________________________________ diversity mailing list diversity@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/diversity
The function is very different, but the concept of a neutral, stable, respected panel of volunteers serving the community's interests is not so different from the existing arrangements for the RIPE NCC Arbiters' panel. It might be worth a look at the relevant documents in case there's anything in there that could be incorporated to save effort defining processes/structure, to make the CoC Team parameters more "RIPE-like", and/or that might otherwise be overlooked. Keith On 8/5/19 8:15 AM, Amanda Gowland wrote:
Please find attached a draft proposal for the CoC Team: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yqOUPR02SONuSt812cuOBkk_xnhjYzjdk9qmsJkc...
I used Sasha's draft as the framework for the doc, just adding/editing where necessary.
There are some to-be-determined factors, mainly:
- How long should a term be for volunteers?> - How many people (minimum, maximum) should we aim for?> - What is the time-frame for response (e.g. how long would a reporter need to wait for a confirmation of receipt from the team?)
Please add your comments.
Kind regards,
Amanda
Hi, Given it is a bit quiet here, probably also due to the holidays, I thought I might give it a little swing. With RIPE79 just over 51 days away, would it be possible to either refurbish the RIPE NCC Arbiters’ panel. or finalise the CoC draft and get a response team ready? I do not have experience with either, but we could make an effort to see how Sasha’s draft and Keith’s proposal might come together. Best Regards, Ruben
On 6 Aug 2019, at 17:11, Keith Mitchell <keith@smoti.org> wrote:
The function is very different, but the concept of a neutral, stable, respected panel of volunteers serving the community's interests is not so different from the existing arrangements for the RIPE NCC Arbiters' panel. It might be worth a look at the relevant documents in case there's anything in there that could be incorporated to save effort defining processes/structure, to make the CoC Team parameters more "RIPE-like", and/or that might otherwise be overlooked.
Keith
On 8/5/19 8:15 AM, Amanda Gowland wrote:
Please find attached a draft proposal for the CoC Team: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yqOUPR02SONuSt812cuOBkk_xnhjYzjdk9qmsJkc...
I used Sasha's draft as the framework for the doc, just adding/editing where necessary.
There are some to-be-determined factors, mainly:
- How long should a term be for volunteers?> - How many people (minimum, maximum) should we aim for?> - What is the time-frame for response (e.g. how long would a reporter need to wait for a confirmation of receipt from the team?)
Please add your comments.
Kind regards,
Amanda
_______________________________________________ diversity mailing list diversity@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/diversity
Hey Ruben, I've incorporated changes suggested by you and Keith here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yqOUPR02SONuSt812cuOBkk_xnhjYzjdk9qmsJkc... I added a section about how the team is to be selected, modelling it loosely on the Arbiter's panel selection procedure (instead of the RIPE NCC Executive Board though, the interest is submitted to the RIPE Chair and it is the RIPE Chair who makes the selection). Are we ready to: a) Share the draft CoC Team doc with the wider community so that b) We can ask HPH to declare consensus + open the call for volunteers Kind regards, Amanda On 23/08/2019 19:29, Ruben van Staveren wrote:
Hi,
Given it is a bit quiet here, probably also due to the holidays, I thought I might give it a little swing.
With RIPE79 just over 51 days away, would it be possible to either refurbish the RIPE NCC Arbiters’ panel. or finalise the CoC draft and get a response team ready?
I do not have experience with either, but we could make an effort to see how Sasha’s draft and Keith’s proposal might come together.
Best Regards, Ruben
On 6 Aug 2019, at 17:11, Keith Mitchell <keith@smoti.org> wrote:
The function is very different, but the concept of a neutral, stable, respected panel of volunteers serving the community's interests is not so different from the existing arrangements for the RIPE NCC Arbiters' panel. It might be worth a look at the relevant documents in case there's anything in there that could be incorporated to save effort defining processes/structure, to make the CoC Team parameters more "RIPE-like", and/or that might otherwise be overlooked.
Keith
On 8/5/19 8:15 AM, Amanda Gowland wrote:
Please find attached a draft proposal for the CoC Team: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yqOUPR02SONuSt812cuOBkk_xnhjYzjdk9qmsJkc...
I used Sasha's draft as the framework for the doc, just adding/editing where necessary.
There are some to-be-determined factors, mainly:
- How long should a term be for volunteers?> - How many people (minimum, maximum) should we aim for?> - What is the time-frame for response (e.g. how long would a reporter need to wait for a confirmation of receipt from the team?)
Please add your comments.
Kind regards,
Amanda
diversity mailing list diversity@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/diversity
_______________________________________________ diversity mailing list diversity@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/diversity
Hi, Amanda Gowland <agowland@ripe.net> wrote: [...]
Are we ready to:
a) Share the draft CoC Team doc with the wider community so that b) We can ask HPH to declare consensus + open the call for volunteers
I have reviewed the updated text and made a couple of comments. Whether my suggestions are incorporated or not I think this document is good and ready to share more widely. Kind regards, Leo Vegoda
Thanks Leo, saw them come in and they are great, thanks! Will work those in this morning. On 28/08/2019 18:10, Leo Vegoda wrote:
Hi,
Amanda Gowland <agowland@ripe.net> wrote:
[...]
Are we ready to:
a) Share the draft CoC Team doc with the wider community so that b) We can ask HPH to declare consensus + open the call for volunteers I have reviewed the updated text and made a couple of comments. Whether my suggestions are incorporated or not I think this document is good and ready to share more widely.
Kind regards,
Leo Vegoda
Hi, Thanks for your work on the document, Amanda! Other than two points I left as a comment in the document, if I’m reading this right the RIPE chair will, on their own, select the members of the CoC team. How will the RIPE chair do this? What are the considerations that apply to this decision? I also don’t see any space for someone saying “hey, I don’t think this person should be on the CoC team, for <reason>” (in private and confidential). There are definitely people in this community who I would be very uncomfortable reporting anything to. In established CoC teams, there’s at least the option of checking whether there were any previous reports about new volunteers, but we don’t have any data like that. I’m also wondering what we can do to attract a diverse group of volunteers. It would be a poor outcome to end up with a CoC team that has little diversity, and consists mainly of usual suspects of our community - I would definitely be more reluctant to report. I don’t immediately have ideas for that. Sasha
On 29 Aug 2019, at 10:26, Amanda Gowland <agowland@ripe.net> wrote:
Thanks Leo, saw them come in and they are great, thanks!
Will work those in this morning.
On 28/08/2019 18:10, Leo Vegoda wrote:
Hi,
Amanda Gowland <agowland@ripe.net> wrote:
[...]
Are we ready to:
a) Share the draft CoC Team doc with the wider community so that b) We can ask HPH to declare consensus + open the call for volunteers I have reviewed the updated text and made a couple of comments. Whether my suggestions are incorporated or not I think this document is good and ready to share more widely.
Kind regards,
Leo Vegoda
_______________________________________________ diversity mailing list diversity@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/diversity
On 29/08/2019 12:43, Sasha Romijn wrote:
Hi,
Thanks for your work on the document, Amanda!
Other than two points I left as a comment in the document, if I’m reading this right the RIPE chair will, on their own, select the members of the CoC team. How will the RIPE chair do this? What are the considerations that apply to this decision? HPH is in the office tomorrow and this is one of the things I want to talk to him about...he might have some input about the selection process (and I will share that here).
I, personally, don't feel *great* about the selection of the team being down to one person either. But it also doesn't make sense to have the RIPE NCC EB do it (as they do for the Arbiters Panel). Other options could be: - Decision is made by vote by the community - We have a "meta" decision making body that makes the decision(but then we're going to need a whole process behind that selection process too...) - HPH gets input from the Diversity TF on the selection
I also don’t see any space for someone saying “hey, I don’t think this person should be on the CoC team, for <reason>” (in private and confidential). There are definitely people in this community who I would be very uncomfortable reporting anything to. In established CoC teams, there’s at least the option of checking whether there were any previous reports about new volunteers, but we don’t have any data like that.
You're right, we should have this in place in the process. We should explicitly say that if there are any objections to a potential team member, people can confidentially submit their concern...especially considering that we don't have any formal way of checking to make sure their behaviour hasn't been in violation in the past.
I’m also wondering what we can do to attract a diverse group of volunteers. It would be a poor outcome to end up with a CoC team that has little diversity, and consists mainly of usual suspects of our community - I would definitely be more reluctant to report. I don’t immediately have ideas for that.
Share this concern too - we cannot have a homogenous team. I expect that we may need to encourage people we think would be a good fit to volunteer. I can also add something in the doc about this...that we are aiming for a diverse team.
Sasha
On 29 Aug 2019, at 10:26, Amanda Gowland <agowland@ripe.net> wrote:
Thanks Leo, saw them come in and they are great, thanks!
Will work those in this morning.
On 28/08/2019 18:10, Leo Vegoda wrote:
Hi,
Amanda Gowland <agowland@ripe.net> wrote:
[...]
Are we ready to:
a) Share the draft CoC Team doc with the wider community so that b) We can ask HPH to declare consensus + open the call for volunteers I have reviewed the updated text and made a couple of comments. Whether my suggestions are incorporated or not I think this document is good and ready to share more widely.
Kind regards,
Leo Vegoda
_______________________________________________ diversity mailing list diversity@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/diversity
Will all due respect, a. I would like to make a remark: In my personal opinion, there is a sensitive matter in 'Report Resolutions' "- Requiring the violator to apologise either privately or publicly ..." In some cases the reporter may be in a very difficult position if needed to face the violator (of even be in the same space) for the apologies due to emotional duress of the situation. Reading closely this phrase it is not very clear (at least to me) what is the format (how) of this requirement. I believe as the note clearly states here: "Note: It is up to the reporter if they will accept an apology from the violator" that perhaps it is not a requirement for both parties to be present, if the reporter does not feel safe (physical or emotional) it is up to the reporter to make a choice and then the team can handle the apology with their own discretion. To be honest, I may have not understand it 100% correct, so please forgive me if such the case. b. I would also want to make a suggestion: Perhaps it is of value to run a simulate instance of violation (as a CoC training game) and try to handle the situation or even try to enforce CoC to identify areas of possible improvement. In a few cases I've noticed [in small conferences] that the lack of experience from the organizers, even with a CoC in hand, it was hard to handle such incidents. And some times aggression can escalate conflict instead of reduce it. Thank you, On 8/29/19 1:59 PM, Amanda Gowland wrote:
Hi,
Thanks for your work on the document, Amanda!
Other than two points I left as a comment in the document, if I’m reading this right the RIPE chair will, on their own, select the members of the CoC team. How will the RIPE chair do this? What are the considerations that apply to this decision? HPH is in the office tomorrow and this is one of the things I want to talk to him about...he might have some input about the selection
On 29/08/2019 12:43, Sasha Romijn wrote: process (and I will share that here).
I, personally, don't feel *great* about the selection of the team being down to one person either. But it also doesn't make sense to have the RIPE NCC EB do it (as they do for the Arbiters Panel). Other options could be:
- Decision is made by vote by the community - We have a "meta" decision making body that makes the decision(but then we're going to need a whole process behind that selection process too...) - HPH gets input from the Diversity TF on the selection
I also don’t see any space for someone saying “hey, I don’t think this person should be on the CoC team, for <reason>” (in private and confidential). There are definitely people in this community who I would be very uncomfortable reporting anything to. In established CoC teams, there’s at least the option of checking whether there were any previous reports about new volunteers, but we don’t have any data like that. You're right, we should have this in place in the process. We should explicitly say that if there are any objections to a potential team member, people can confidentially submit their concern...especially considering that we don't have any formal way of checking to make sure their behaviour hasn't been in violation in the past. I’m also wondering what we can do to attract a diverse group of volunteers. It would be a poor outcome to end up with a CoC team that has little diversity, and consists mainly of usual suspects of our community - I would definitely be more reluctant to report. I don’t immediately have ideas for that. Share this concern too - we cannot have a homogenous team. I expect that we may need to encourage people we think would be a good fit to volunteer. I can also add something in the doc about this...that we are aiming for a diverse team. Sasha
On 29 Aug 2019, at 10:26, Amanda Gowland <agowland@ripe.net> wrote:
Thanks Leo, saw them come in and they are great, thanks!
Will work those in this morning.
On 28/08/2019 18:10, Leo Vegoda wrote:
Hi,
Amanda Gowland <agowland@ripe.net> wrote:
[...]
Are we ready to:
a) Share the draft CoC Team doc with the wider community so that b) We can ask HPH to declare consensus + open the call for volunteers I have reviewed the updated text and made a couple of comments. Whether my suggestions are incorporated or not I think this document is good and ready to share more widely.
Kind regards,
Leo Vegoda
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Respect all people that you meet at the space, as well as the space itself
Will all due respect,
a. I would like to make a remark:
In my personal opinion, there is a sensitive matter in 'Report Resolutions' "- Requiring the violator to apologise either privately or publicly ..."
In some cases the reporter may be in a very difficult position if needed to face the violator (of even be in the same space) for the apologies due to emotional duress of the situation. Reading closely this phrase it is not very clear (at least to me) what is the format (how) of this requirement. I believe as the note clearly states here:
"Note: It is up to the reporter if they will accept an apology from the violator" Yes, 100% agree, a reporter will never be pushed to be present for an apology. If the violator would like to apologise face-to-face, the team should first consult with the reporter to see if this is something they want. I'll have a look at the text to see if I can make this more explicit somehow. that perhaps it is not a requirement for both parties to be present, if the reporter does not feel safe (physical or emotional) it is up to the reporter to make a choice and then the team can handle the apology with their own discretion.
To be honest, I may have not understand it 100% correct, so please forgive me if such the case.
b. I would also want to make a suggestion:
Perhaps it is of value to run a simulate instance of violation (as a CoC training game) and try to handle the situation or even try to enforce CoC to identify areas of possible improvement. In a few cases I've noticed [in small conferences] that the lack of experience from the organizers, even with a CoC in hand, it was hard to handle such incidents. And some times aggression can escalate conflict instead of reduce it. This is a really good idea. I think we should also ensure that when we communicate this document again, we make it clear that this is a *new*
Hi Evaggelos, On 29/08/2019 23:03, Evaggelos Balaskas wrote: process and we will need to be mindful of feedback and tweak the process once its being used should something not be working as it should. Many thanks, Amanda
Thank you,
On 8/29/19 1:59 PM, Amanda Gowland wrote:
Hi,
Thanks for your work on the document, Amanda!
Other than two points I left as a comment in the document, if I’m reading this right the RIPE chair will, on their own, select the members of the CoC team. How will the RIPE chair do this? What are the considerations that apply to this decision? HPH is in the office tomorrow and this is one of the things I want to talk to him about...he might have some input about the selection
On 29/08/2019 12:43, Sasha Romijn wrote: process (and I will share that here).
I, personally, don't feel *great* about the selection of the team being down to one person either. But it also doesn't make sense to have the RIPE NCC EB do it (as they do for the Arbiters Panel). Other options could be:
- Decision is made by vote by the community - We have a "meta" decision making body that makes the decision(but then we're going to need a whole process behind that selection process too...) - HPH gets input from the Diversity TF on the selection
I also don’t see any space for someone saying “hey, I don’t think this person should be on the CoC team, for <reason>” (in private and confidential). There are definitely people in this community who I would be very uncomfortable reporting anything to. In established CoC teams, there’s at least the option of checking whether there were any previous reports about new volunteers, but we don’t have any data like that. You're right, we should have this in place in the process. We should explicitly say that if there are any objections to a potential team member, people can confidentially submit their concern...especially considering that we don't have any formal way of checking to make sure their behaviour hasn't been in violation in the past. I’m also wondering what we can do to attract a diverse group of volunteers. It would be a poor outcome to end up with a CoC team that has little diversity, and consists mainly of usual suspects of our community - I would definitely be more reluctant to report. I don’t immediately have ideas for that. Share this concern too - we cannot have a homogenous team. I expect that we may need to encourage people we think would be a good fit to volunteer. I can also add something in the doc about this...that we are aiming for a diverse team. Sasha
On 29 Aug 2019, at 10:26, Amanda Gowland <agowland@ripe.net> wrote:
Thanks Leo, saw them come in and they are great, thanks!
Will work those in this morning.
On 28/08/2019 18:10, Leo Vegoda wrote:
Hi,
Amanda Gowland <agowland@ripe.net> wrote:
[...]
Are we ready to:
a) Share the draft CoC Team doc with the wider community so that b) We can ask HPH to declare consensus + open the call for volunteers I have reviewed the updated text and made a couple of comments. Whether my suggestions are incorporated or not I think this document is good and ready to share more widely.
Kind regards,
Leo Vegoda
_______________________________________________ diversity mailing list diversity@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/diversity
_______________________________________________ diversity mailing list diversity@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/diversity
Hi,
Perhaps it is of value to run a simulate instance of violation (as a CoC training game) and try to handle the situation or even try to enforce CoC to identify areas of possible improvement. In a few cases I've noticed [in small conferences] that the lack of experience from the organizers, even with a CoC in hand, it was hard to handle such incidents. And some times aggression can escalate conflict instead of reduce it.
This is a really good idea. I think we should also ensure that when we communicate this document again, we make it clear that this is a *new* process and we will need to be mindful of feedback and tweak the process once its being used should something not be working as it should.
Just to add to this, I would say it is essential. The RIPE NCC arranged training for the Trusted Contacts, whose role is far less “hands on,” and part of that was going through reporting scenarios with an actor. It was, in my mind, a critical part of training. Cheers, Rob
Hi, On 29/08/2019 23:03, Evaggelos Balaskas wrote:
b. I would also want to make a suggestion:
Perhaps it is of value to run a simulate instance of violation (as a CoC training game) and try to handle the situation
I recommend "non-violent communication" training in conflict-resolution (there are many teachers & groups that can do this, I can provide references on request). There are also online courses: for example: http://nvctraining.com/media/_2019/ML-RM/social-change/index.html A while ago I've sent links to specific CoC-team training: https://otter.technology/code-of-conduct-training/ Another example: Workshops by Leigh Honeywell: https://rightscon2018.sched.com/event/Ec6c/ally-skills-workshop https://rightscon2018.sched.com/event/EZj0/identifying-abusive-behaviour And to quote a wise woman: " I'd like to add that we need to remind ourselves from time to time that minorities are not the problem. If we keep focusing on them / us, we might forget to address the actual problem (white supremacist, capitalist, toxic masculine culture) and the people within it who hold the power to make structural changes :) " So after we are done training small groups, I'd love to see a Monday-morning tutorial or a workshops during the BoF timeslot on some of those topics... and/or plenary talk(s) with the above-mentioned topics. "Ask for the moon", Vesna
b) We can ask HPH to declare consensus + open the call for volunteers
Let me know when you are ready for me to do the last call for consensus on the RIPE list. Maybe you also want a time-slot in the Community Plenary on Thursday. Hans Petter
Thanks Hans Petter, Let me work the final few comments into the draft, and then I'll poke some of the others to make sure they're happy for us to do that. Amanda On 30/08/2019 11:07, Hans Petter Holen wrote:
b) We can ask HPH to declare consensus + open the call for volunteers
Let me know when you are ready for me to do the last call for consensus on the RIPE list.
Maybe you also want a time-slot in the Community Plenary on Thursday.
Hans Petter
Amanda, all, As a member of the community I would like to thank you for this, I think it looks very good and, of course, it can be amended over time as reality dictates. I would caution putting deadlines on the completion of an investigation because these things can take a lot of time. I would prefer to say something about investigations being completed in a “reasonable” timeframe with all parties being updated as needed. We could even add an “ideally before the end of the current meeting” but hard deadlines on this will only lead to them being broken, imo. I like the notion that the RIPE Chair chooses the team in consultation with the Diversity-TF. That’s very vague, but also we’re a very open TF, so I’m not sure how it would work, ofc. I also like an explicit statement that effort will be put in to building a diverse team. Thanks, 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 From: diversity <diversity-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of Amanda Gowland Sent: Friday 30 August 2019 12:13 To: hph@oslo.net Cc: diversity@ripe.net Subject: Re: [diversity] *draft* CoC Team doc Thanks Hans Petter, Let me work the final few comments into the draft, and then I'll poke some of the others to make sure they're happy for us to do that. Amanda On 30/08/2019 11:07, Hans Petter Holen wrote: b) We can ask HPH to declare consensus + open the call for volunteers Let me know when you are ready for me to do the last call for consensus on the RIPE list. Maybe you also want a time-slot in the Community Plenary on Thursday. Hans Petter
I consider this absolutely not ready for a consensus call. It introduces a new process with grave sanctions including + “Removing a presentation and video archive from the meeting website” + “Requiring that the violator leave the meeting/social immediately without a refund (as per the RIPE Meeting Terms and Conditions)” + “Banning attendance for future meetings (in the case of repeated violations, violence and extreme violations)” Yet there is no mention at all of appeal, review or redress. This is not the way the RIPE community should operate. I also suggest to have the language reviewed by the NCC legal team for legality and precision before considering a consensus call. Daniel On 30 Aug 2019, at 13:13, Amanda Gowland wrote:
Thanks Hans Petter,
Let me work the final few comments into the draft, and then I'll poke some of the others to make sure they're happy for us to do that.
Amanda
On 30/08/2019 11:07, Hans Petter Holen wrote:
b) We can ask HPH to declare consensus + open the call for volunteers
Let me know when you are ready for me to do the last call for consensus on the RIPE list.
Maybe you also want a time-slot in the Community Plenary on Thursday.
Hans Petter
_______________________________________________ diversity mailing list diversity@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/diversity
Hi Daniel, On 02/09/2019 14:03, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
I consider this absolutely not ready for a consensus call. It introduces a new process with grave sanctions including
*
“Removing a presentation and video archive from the meeting website”
Disagree. If someone violates the CoC in their presentation, they should be given an opportunity to remove the offending material and re-upload. Likewise, if there's a video recording of someone being racist/sexist/homophobic/harrasing (for example), the video should either be removed or have the offending content edited out.
*
“Requiring that the violator leave the meeting/social immediately without a refund (as per the RIPE Meeting Terms and Conditions)”
This is nothing new. We already state this in the T&Cs for the RIPE Meeting that all attendees agree to in the registration process.
*
“Banning attendance for future meetings (in the case of repeated violations, violence and extreme violations)”
Yet there is no mention at all of appeal, review or redress. This is not the way the RIPE community should operate.
This was discussed on Friday with HPH - I'll be adding some text in here re: Appeal...as well as incorporating the rest of his feedback.
I also suggest to have the language reviewed by the NCC legal team for legality and precision before considering a consensus call.
Yes, have already discussed this and that is the plan.
Daniel
Thanks, Amanda
On 30 Aug 2019, at 13:13, Amanda Gowland wrote:
Thanks Hans Petter,
Let me work the final few comments into the draft, and then I'll poke some of the others to make sure they're happy for us to do that.
Amanda
On 30/08/2019 11:07, Hans Petter Holen wrote:
b) We can ask HPH to declare consensus + open the call for volunteers
Let me know when you are ready for me to do the last call for consensus on the RIPE list.
Maybe you also want a time-slot in the Community Plenary on Thursday.
Hans Petter
_______________________________________________ diversity mailing list diversity@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/diversity
We are not commiunicating: My point is that *any* action taken on behalf of the community needs a process for appeal and review. This is especially true if the action can be perceived as corrective or punitive and/or if it involves some form of judgement about behavior. In these cases we better have a well defined process for appeal and review in place before someone disagrees with what we are doing. I included the examples to make the point that the new process proposes *grave* sanctions. I was not addressing the sanctions themselves. But since we are here: On 2 Sep 2019, at 14:09, Amanda Gowland wrote:
Hi Daniel,
On 02/09/2019 14:03, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
I consider this absolutely not ready for a consensus call. It introduces a new process with grave sanctions including
*
“Removing a presentation and video archive from the meeting website”
Disagree. If someone violates the CoC in their presentation, they should be given an opportunity to remove the offending material and re-upload. Likewise, if there's a video recording of someone being racist/sexist/homophobic/harrasing (for example), the video should either be removed or have the offending content edited out.
Removing someone’s contribution from a community forum is *serious* business in a community that is about exchanging information and opinions! Maybe we should incorporate some of the words you just wrote in the draft itself. At the moment it reads like removal is the only option. Again: how are disputes with the author solved? Will the CoC team dictate the edits? What happens in case of a dispute?
*
“Requiring that the violator leave the meeting/social immediately without a refund (as per the RIPE Meeting Terms and Conditions)”
This is nothing new. We already state this in the T&Cs for the RIPE Meeting that all attendees agree to in the registration process.
The process proposed *is* new.
*
“Banning attendance for future meetings (in the case of repeated violations, violence and extreme violations)”
Yet there is no mention at all of appeal, review or redress. This is not the way the RIPE community should operate.
This was discussed on Friday with HPH - I'll be adding some text in here re: Appeal...as well as incorporating the rest of his feedback.
Lets hear it!
I also suggest to have the language reviewed by the NCC legal team for legality and precision before considering a consensus call.
Yes, have already discussed this and that is the plan.
Good to hear. Thanks. Daniel
Hello Daniel,
On 2 Sep 2019, at 14:26, Daniel Karrenberg <dfk@ripe.net> wrote: We are not commiunicating: My point is that any action taken on behalf of the community needs a process for appeal and review.
Do you have a suggestion for where that responsibility should be placed? It should be a small group, and can’t be a single person. Sasha
On 2 Sep 2019, at 16:33, Sasha Romijn wrote:
Hello Daniel,
On 2 Sep 2019, at 14:26, Daniel Karrenberg <dfk@ripe.net> wrote: We are not commiunicating: My point is that any action taken on behalf of the community needs a process for appeal and review.
Do you have a suggestion for where that responsibility should be placed? It should be a small group, and can’t be a single person.
Sasha
No I have no such suggestion at this time and I have neither time nor energy. What is needed is a process that makes decisions independent of and untainted by the people that made the original decision. That process also needs time lines. For examples look at the IETF and similar groups. Note also that we have just reached consensus on a procedure to select the RIPE Chair which has a number of different appeals mechanisms in it for a number of purposes. Daniel
On Mon, Sep 02, 2019 at 02:03:53PM +0200, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
+ “Requiring that the violator leave the meeting/social immediately without a refund (as per the RIPE Meeting Terms and Conditions)”
+ “Banning attendance for future meetings (in the case of repeated violations, violence and extreme violations)”
Yet there is no mention at all of appeal, review or redress. This is not the way the RIPE community should operate.
I support Daniel's statement and: There is another issue with this process. I don't really care what is done at meetings, I don't go to those and certainly won't in the future, but this process is intended to extend to the WG mailing-lists. Specifically, it removes the WG chairs' mandate to deal with issues on their WG's mailing list and invests this mandate in the CoC kommissariat (or whatever it ends up being called) These MLs are where the PDP happens. For all purposes, they are the "parliament" that makes resource policy which affects more people than even the European Parliament's decisions do. Vesting the power to silence any contribution to the PDP discussions in an unelected and unaccountable committee fatally compromises the PDP itself. I for one would not accept any consensus thus achieved as legitimate and binding if there is even the possibility of voices having been silenced without my knowledge. The WG chairs, to the best of my knowledge, have always struck the correct balance, allowing all contributions unless persistently off-topic or outright abusive. Moreover, the community has the option of not "re-electing" a WG chair, should they fail to discharge their office properly. I cannot see in the proposed documents, a similar process to hold the CoC cabal to account. tl;dr: I claim "parliamentary privilege" for the working-group mailing-lists and deny that the PDP should be subordinate to a CoC or its (unaccountable) enforcers. rgds, Sascha Luck Therefore, I claim "parliamentary privilege" for the WG mailing lists.
I also suggest to have the language reviewed by the NCC legal team for legality and precision before considering a consensus call.
Daniel
On 30 Aug 2019, at 13:13, Amanda Gowland wrote:
Thanks Hans Petter,
Let me work the final few comments into the draft, and then I'll poke some of the others to make sure they're happy for us to do that.
Amanda
On 30/08/2019 11:07, Hans Petter Holen wrote:
b) We can ask HPH to declare consensus + open the call for volunteers
Let me know when you are ready for me to do the last call for consensus on the RIPE list.
Maybe you also want a time-slot in the Community Plenary on Thursday.
Hans Petter
_______________________________________________ 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
Sascha, Well spotted. I was not going to mention mailing lists for fear of being perceived as a grumpy old white man who is simply obstructionist. But since you raised it … I agree that it is extremely likely that any procedure that we design for meetings is likely to cause calls for a procedure for mailing lists whether we like it or not. And yes there will be suggestions to ‘Just have the CoC team police the mailing lists too.’ It would be good governance to be mindful of this when designing procedures. Again: the IETF has evolved procedures for mailing lists ... They are neither simple nor easy to apply. Daniel
Hi Daniel, On Mon, Sep 02, 2019 at 05:06:07PM +0200, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
I agree that it is extremely likely that any procedure that we design for meetings is likely to cause calls for a procedure for mailing lists whether we like it or not. And yes there will be suggestions to
The draft document https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/ripe-meetings/ripe-meeting-code-of... mentions mailing lists explicitly: "This Code of Conduct applies to all spaces of the RIPE community. This includes: RIPE meetings (including social events and peripheral activities) Presentation materials used in talks or sessions *Mailing lists and forums* Any other forums created by which the community uses for communication." I assume this to include WG-MLs. rgds, Sascha Luck
Daniel
Overlooked that. Thanks. On 2 Sep 2019, at 17:48, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote:
Hi Daniel,
On Mon, Sep 02, 2019 at 05:06:07PM +0200, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
I agree that it is extremely likely that any procedure that we design for meetings is likely to cause calls for a procedure for mailing lists whether we like it or not. And yes there will be suggestions to
The draft document https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/ripe-meetings/ripe-meeting-code-of...
mentions mailing lists explicitly:
"This Code of Conduct applies to all spaces of the RIPE community. This includes:
RIPE meetings (including social events and peripheral activities) Presentation materials used in talks or sessions *Mailing lists and forums* Any other forums created by which the community uses for communication."
I assume this to include WG-MLs.
rgds, Sascha Luck
Daniel
participants (12)
-
Amanda Gowland -
Brian Nisbet -
Daniel Karrenberg -
Evaggelos Balaskas -
Hans Petter Holen -
Keith Mitchell -
Leo Vegoda -
Rob Evans -
Ruben van Staveren -
Sascha Luck [ml] -
Sasha Romijn -
Vesna Manojlovic