Re: [members-discuss] Board minutes regarding investigation
Hi Sander, Yeah, maybe "neutral" isn't the best way to describe it. Let's say there's a spectrum that goes: positive > neutral > negative but tolerable > intolerable/unacceptable (undermines values) Where only the worst category would be actionable. For your "death by a thousand cuts principle", that could in certain cases be harassment that would be actionable (eg when repeatedly directed at the same person), and the CoC explicitly leaves room for this by specifying the list is non-exhaustive. However, this is well into subjective territory. Some people have a natural communication style that's abrasive (it's been said about me). Someone may experience this as negative communication, while others may describe it as direct and therefore actually positive (I myself prefer to interpret it like this if possible). Besides that, life in general isn't only positive, so to communicate effectively negative communication is a necessary tool in the toolbox. Negative doesn't equal bad. So, we shouldn't want negative communication chilled by subjecting it to process just because it's negative. Personally I'd err on the side of not interfering in communication unless it's clearly malicious as the examples in the CoC. Having said that, I don't actually know what communication by the board member you're referring to, so I don't mean to defend that specifically. Though, it seems the investigator came to the conclusion that it didn't rise to the intolerable/unacceptable level. But that doesn't mean it's positive in any way. -- Regards, Terrence de Kat, PhD/MTh/BPsy Darkness Reigns (Holding) B.V. Please quote relevant replies. From: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> Sent: Wednesday, 18 January 2023 15:38 To: Terrence de Kat Cc: <members-discuss@ripe.net>; Christian Kaufmann Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Board minutes regarding investigation
Hi Terrence,
So, there exists a (very wide) range of communication that doesn't align with the given "examples of positive behavior", nor with the given "examples [of behaviours that undermine our values]". Let's call this "neutral" communication.
Hmmm. I see your point. I feel it’s a given that behaviour that is totally opposite to "positive behaviour" is automatically “bad behaviour”, so I wouldn’t call that “neutral”.
My feeling is that there is a gap between “bad behaviour that warrants immediate consequences” and “bad behaviour that is just annoying by itself, but should warrant consequences if it becomes a pattern”. The death by a thousand cuts principle. The consequences for the victim are no less in the latter case, but it is much harder to determine which little cut was the one that crossed the line.
How to protect victims from both behaviours, sadly I do know know :(
Cheers, Sander
I have to admit that I am a bit uneasy about this discussion. First of all, I have no idea who the board member is or what the actual communication is, but there is inference in the thread that others do. Perhaps I have missed something but I personally would prefer to either discuss the policy, or actual evidence. So let’s assume we are talking about the policy of the CoC and to what extent it is “enough”. The problem with a policy that talks about positive behaviours and the assumption that everything else is therefor negative is that you cannot completely enumerate all positive behaviour just as you cannot enumerate all negative. At the end there is a balance and a subjective judgement. The policy should act as guideline that sets expectations, not as an exhaustive list. There has been an investigation and a conclusion. Anyone might agree or disagree with the conclusion but in this case at least I don’t know enough to understand if this is due the policy being inadequate or just that the inquiry on balance found there was no breach. I agree with Terrence that there is a sliding scale and that has to be judged, and negative feedback / communication is an important part of forming policy. Watch a parliamentary debate in any country and there is consistently negative communication, often between the same persons, for years. That is not harassment or death by a thousand cuts. There is a threshold for when it can become that though. Best Regards, - kurtis - -- Kurt Erik Lindqvist, CEO T: +44 (0) 20 7645 3528 | www.linx.net<http://www.linx.net> [b8dd7c7e-5b7a-4bb3-bf55-4265639a41be]<https://www.linx.net/> London Internet Exchange Ltd (LINX) C/O WeWork, 2 Minster Court, Floor 4, Mincing Lane, London EC3R 7BB Registered in England number 3137929 [09f5285b-9bf5-4663-a1d5-f335264499f8]<https://twitter.com/linx_network>[0ab2af08-4510-4094-a068-c92129623c5c]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/linx>[34761a22-8ab1-4259-b5a4-c45509cfc94a]<https://www.facebook.com/LondonInternetExchange/>[591060a6-addb-47a4-a833-1c93e4b644f4]<https://www.youtube.com/user/LINXnetwork> From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of Terrence de Kat via members-discuss <members-discuss@ripe.net> Reply to: Terrence de Kat <terrence@darkness-reigns.com> Date: Thursday, 19 January 2023 at 14:39 To: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> Cc: "members-discuss@ripe.net" <members-discuss@ripe.net>, "exec-board@ripe.net" <exec-board@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Board minutes regarding investigation Hi Sander, Yeah, maybe "neutral" isn't the best way to describe it. Let's say there's a spectrum that goes: positive > neutral > negative but tolerable > intolerable/unacceptable (undermines values) Where only the worst category would be actionable. For your "death by a thousand cuts principle", that could in certain cases be harassment that would be actionable (eg when repeatedly directed at the same person), and the CoC explicitly leaves room for this by specifying the list is non-exhaustive. However, this is well into subjective territory. Some people have a natural communication style that's abrasive (it's been said about me). Someone may experience this as negative communication, while others may describe it as direct and therefore actually positive (I myself prefer to interpret it like this if possible). Besides that, life in general isn't only positive, so to communicate effectively negative communication is a necessary tool in the toolbox. Negative doesn't equal bad. So, we shouldn't want negative communication chilled by subjecting it to process just because it's negative. Personally I'd err on the side of not interfering in communication unless it's clearly malicious as the examples in the CoC. Having said that, I don't actually know what communication by the board member you're referring to, so I don't mean to defend that specifically. Though, it seems the investigator came to the conclusion that it didn't rise to the intolerable/unacceptable level. But that doesn't mean it's positive in any way. -- Regards, Terrence de Kat, PhD/MTh/BPsy Darkness Reigns (Holding) B.V. Please quote relevant replies. From: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> Sent: Wednesday, 18 January 2023 15:38 To: Terrence de Kat Cc: <members-discuss@ripe.net>; Christian Kaufmann Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Board minutes regarding investigation Hi Terrence,
So, there exists a (very wide) range of communication that doesn't align with the given "examples of positive behavior", nor with the given "examples [of behaviours that undermine our values]". Let's call this "neutral" communication.
Hmmm. I see your point. I feel it’s a given that behaviour that is totally opposite to "positive behaviour" is automatically “bad behaviour”, so I wouldn’t call that “neutral”. My feeling is that there is a gap between “bad behaviour that warrants immediate consequences” and “bad behaviour that is just annoying by itself, but should warrant consequences if it becomes a pattern”. The death by a thousand cuts principle. The consequences for the victim are no less in the latter case, but it is much harder to determine which little cut was the one that crossed the line. How to protect victims from both behaviours, sadly I do know know :( Cheers, Sander
Hi Kurtis,
I have to admit that I am a bit uneasy about this discussion. First of all, I have no idea who the board member is or what the actual communication is, but there is inference in the thread that others do. Perhaps I have missed something but I personally would prefer to either discuss the policy, or actual evidence. So let’s assume we are talking about the policy of the CoC and to what extent it is “enough”.
+1
The problem with a policy that talks about positive behaviours and the assumption that everything else is therefor negative is that you cannot completely enumerate all positive behaviour just as you cannot enumerate all negative. At the end there is a balance and a subjective judgement. The policy should act as guideline that sets expectations, not as an exhaustive list. There has been an investigation and a conclusion. Anyone might agree or disagree with the conclusion but in this case at least I don’t know enough to understand if this is due the policy being inadequate or just that the inquiry on balance found there was no breach.
It turns out that this case was evaluated against the RIPE NCC Code of Conduct, not the RIPE Code of Conduct. Ondrej has shared the link where it can be found, and it has very different definitions about what is acceptable behaviour. I don’t think there is any point in now reevaluating the RIPE CoC as that wasn’t even involved.
I agree with Terrence that there is a sliding scale and that has to be judged, and negative feedback / communication is an important part of forming policy. Watch a parliamentary debate in any country and there is consistently negative communication, often between the same persons, for years. That is not harassment or death by a thousand cuts. There is a threshold for when it can become that though.
Agreed. Black and white rules will make things worse, not better. Context can be more important than the actual words being spoken. The difference between debate in parliament and a conflict inside the RIPE NCC is the potential for power imbalance. I therefore think that this has to be specifically solved by the board for that context. I am personally frustrated about the outcome of the investigation, but it is what it is. We can’t change the rules afterwards, but I think there is value in showing the board what we as members expect for the future. Cheers! Sander
participants (3)
-
Kurtis Lindqvist -
Sander Steffann -
Terrence de Kat