Hi Alex,

I believe you’re mixing things. This discussion is NOT related to having “a” or “b” in the TF. Trust me, it’s not related at all. Despite having been rejected from the TF, without any rationale, this discussion is about making sure that we have a coherent CoC and we can really enforce it, without any possible liability.

However, if you want to go to that point, when you setup a Task Force, in a so-called “open” and “inclusive” community, without previous and explicit rules about “who” can participate and “who can’t”, it is a discrimination and against law.

We don’t have such explicit rules in this community to allow the chairs to select some folks for a Task Force and not others.
I’ve asked where is the document that explains the basis for the selection (or rejection), the response was “silence” (moths since that and still no response). Another theater (as we say in Spain): “transparency”, and even more education. If you made a mistake or make a wrong decision, you say it, and problem solved, but not responding is really showing many things about your responsibility as a chair.
We could create such rules, if they’re based on something that doesn’t constate discrimination and that's always debatable, so be it. But we need to do that up-front, not “you don’t participate today, tomorrow we make the rules to explain why you haven’t been admitted in the club”.
It is pure theater, to call a group “open” and then don’t allows some folks to participate.
It is even worst that this happens in the creation of a Code of Conduct. How we can get bound to a set of rules if the rules have been initially created in a closed group?

Even in a private organization such as a bar or restaurant, you can decide to exclude someone to come in, HOWEVER for that you need to 1) Set the rules up-front (for example dressing code), 2) Ensure that those rules aren’t against the law.

So yes, it is discrimination. I’ve double checked this specific case with a lawyer and further to that, I’ve been involved in similar situations in the Spanish courts (even the Constitutional Court), against the Spanish government, and I won the cases, and law (or wrong decisions) were changed.

But the worst is that chairs are creating their own rules, not the first time it happens.

What is next? Someone can’t participate in meetings because he complains about chairs?

I’m sorry, but we have rules for how we take decisions in this community, for a good reason, otherwise, we all do whatever we want and we have no respect for anything.

Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet

El 25/3/21 13:02, "ripe-list en nombre de Alex de Joode" <ripe-list-bounces@ripe.net en nombre de alex@idgara.nl> escribió:

Hi Jordi,

I fail to see what 'crime' was committed by not including you in the TF (except you overloading my mailbox again).

There is no law against choosing one person and not choosing an other person -as long- as this is not based on pigmentation, sex, sexual orientation, religion etc. If the choice is made based on those selection criteria we call it discrimination and it *might* be against the law. So please explain how 'you not being included in the TF' constitutes discrimination?

IDGARA | Alex de Joode | alex@idgara.nl | +31651108221

On Thu, 25-03-2021 12h 22min, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list <ripe-list@ripe.net> wrote:

I don't think this is the case. What happens is that if nobody reports (or the LEA don't discover) that it was not reported by someone that had the knowledge of it, nothing is going to happen against the "lack of reporting".

As said, not being a lawyer, the right thing here is to ensure that it is verified by the legal counsel, as well as the complete CoC, to ensure that we aren't trying to enforce something that may create problems at some point.

El 25/3/21 11:43, "ripe-list en nombre de Daniel Karrenberg" <ripe-list-bounces@ripe.net en nombre de dfk@ripe.net> escribió:

On 24 Mar 2021, at 17:21, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list wrote:

> I don't know if this is the same in Netherlands, but in many
> countries, if you (either citizen or organization) know about a
> possible illegal action, you must report it, otherwise may be liable
> of covering-up an illegal activity. …

This is a myth.

In modern legal systems the obligation to report crimes is very, very
limited. Typically one must only report crimes against human life and
similarly severe crimes. Very often this obligation is also limited to
the time when the crime can still be prevented. Often the obligation to
report can be met by informing the potential victim instead of law
enforcement.

More general obligations to report crimes are one of the hallmarks of
totalitarian systems.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and I do not play one on TV. I am not
familiar with every jurisdiction in this solar system. ;-)

Daniel

References:

NL: Artikel 160 Sv
DE: § 138 StGB

**********************************************
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.