All, the CoC draft version 3.0 [1], while it is called the "RIPE Meeting Code of Conduct", makes reference to the PDP as detailed below. - in "Scope" it claims authority over "RIPE mailing lists and the RIPE Forum" - "In cases where a report involves a RIPE Working Group Mailing List, the RIPE CoC Team will consult with the respective RIPE Working Group Chairs to gather context or any other relevant information that may help with its investigation." - One of the possible sanctions described is: "Not allowing someone to participate further in RIPE Meetings and/or *other RIPE community spaces*, for a set period or an indefinite period" Generally the tenor of the document is that, yes, it is intended to apply to the PDP-relevant processes and spaces and I don't think that fact is disputed. This is fundamentally incompatible with ripe-1 and ripe-710. If you, like me, consider those documents our "constitution", this CoC violates the letter as well as the spirit. If this reads like politics, that is because it *is*. 1) I consider ripe-1 and ripe-710 the "constitution" that provides for all of the below[2][3] 2) I consider the PDP and its WG mailing lists our "legislative". 3) The RIPE NCC could, in a very loose sense, be called our "executive". Like any democratic executive, it governs by the consent of the governed and is charged with implementing policy made through the PDP. 4) I consider the WG chair collective as some sort of combined "Speaker of Parliament", "Head of State" and "Constitutional Court". Their purpose is to steer the PDP and ensure that processes are followed in accordance to ripe-710 and ripe-1. They also determine that a consensus has been reached. (They "sign a proposal into law", so to speak.) 5) Through the PDP policy is developed, policy that affects every internet user in the RIPE Service Region. It affects more people and organisations than any law made even in the European Parliament. 6) According to ripe-710, the PDP is "open to all", "transparent", "from the bottom up" and "Conclusions are reached by consensus". To me, this means that every voice that wishes to speak must be heard. 7) Policy proposals, "bills" in other words, are often contentious, much like proposed law in other venues. Debate has, in the past, often been robust, raucous and occasionally vociferous. This is as it should be, this broad a community will rarely be of one mind and people have different ideas. Dissent, as in any democracy, is essential, even more so in a consensus-based system. How does the proposed CoC affect all this? For one, it is not transparent: Decisions are made behind closed doors, decisions that will - the draft document is clear on this - lead to voices being silenced and being silenced *silently*. It is not "open to all": it is only open to those who have not fallen afoul of the CoC or its enforcers. It is not consensus-based: "consensus of the approved" is worthless. It is not "bottom-up": the CoC Team sits at the very top of the chain and determines who can be a member of the RIPE community and who can't. Finally, it is open to abuse and, arguably, *designed* to be abused. It opens the way to anyone who is not happy ("comfortable" in the words of the draft) with the outcome or direction of a PDP discussion to rely on anonymous denunciation and intransparent processes to have all dissent silenced. The draft contains no reference to fairness or to a right of the accused to be heard and to defend themselves, which is a perversion of natural justice[4]. There is some kind of right-of-appeal, but it's an appeal to the same people who issued a "conviction" in the first place. Applied to the PDP and its participants, this, in political terms, is a putsch. It establishes a cabal that has the power to determine who may participate in the PDP in the first place. This may lead to the establishment of a sham consensus as all dissenting voices have been silenced, which the remaining community may not even be aware of. Policy developed under this system should be considered in violation of ripe-1 and ripe-710 and thus "unconstitutional". I'm not sure where the NCC stands in regard to obligations imposed on it by illegitimately created policy. This may be a question for the membership. There was a call for solutions, rather than just complaints, earlier. In this spirit I offer two possibilities: 1) Apply a "parliamentary privilege"[5] to PDP discussions. This means that only the WG chair collective has jurisdiction over PDP discussions and can "punish" participants - but with full transparency. 2) Let the "CoC team" investigate complaints but leave any decisions up to the WG chair collective. Again, any bans, temporary, or permanent must be fully transparent. As an aside, has anyone considered the difficulty of enforcing something like this on MLs where no identification requirement exists and someone "banned" can just re-sub under a different name/email address? In any case, I'd like to hear some discussion on this. Speak up. please. It may be the last chance you have. rgds, Sascha Luck [1] https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/ripe-meetings/ripe-meeting-code-of... [2] https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/roundtable/march-2005/presentation... [3] https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-710 [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_justice [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_privilege
I've been keeping pretty quiet on this matter, as I have stepped back my involvement in RIPE. This stepping back was 100% due to the fact that I am not doing much network engineering any more, and living in California, 5 and 6am conference calls are pretty difficult. I cannot stay silent on this matter, and watch the community that I love accuse the diversity WG of trying to destroy RIPE. For background, my first experience with a network engineering community was NANOG. It was not a welcoming community, especially as a young woman trying to grow her career. There is a reason that I was willing for a number of years to pay for a transatlantic flight, and to wake up for early morning conference calls! The RIPE community is an amazing one, full of great people who are really trying to push forward the best policies of running the internet. Sascha, you may not realize that RIPE already has a code of conduct, https://ripe77.ripe.net/on-site/code-of-conduct/ - where attendees may be asked to leave a meeting and "other actions" may be taken. I like the new draft because it clarifies how and what actions may be taken. I am not comfortable with your proposal of the entire WG chair committee being set as the "jury" for these cases. The WG chairs are a group of people selected for their expertise and willingness to give back to the community in specific technical areas, not for their willingness to go to trainings of how to handle harassment cases and knowing how to treat these very difficult and emotional situations with empathy and confidentiality. I will give all of you an example from my past -- where I did not report this issue, as the conference had no Code of Conduct or stated way to report it. I was at another conference, in the states. I met a person who seemed like a nice gentleman, we were hanging out and flirting a bit, and went to go get a few drinks after the day's sessions had ended. We kissed, and then I had decided I was done for the night, that was as far as I wanted to go, and I was going to go back to my hotel room and go to sleep. The man found my twitter handle (not too hard to do!) and started messaging me on there -- I told him I wasn't interested and was going to bed. He then started to message some more threatening messages about how I led him on and it wasn't fair and I owed him sex. I messaged him telling him to never message me again, to go get some water, and go to bed. He then went to the front desk of the hotel and had them call my room -- which was quite a bit scary. I obviously hung up on him. Then the front desk called me again, asking if they wanted me to give him my room number. Obviously I said no and asked them to please make sure that the man doesn't come anywhere near my floor. Then it was all over. I never went to that conference again, and I stopped contributing to that open source project. This is not the kind of story I ever wanted to share with anyone beyond my closest circle of friends. I felt a combination of scared and embarrassed (what if it was all my fault and I led him on?). I count 28 WG chairs -- many of whom I know personally and respect and I want them to have the highest regard for me professionally. If they heard the story, do you really think that 28 people would keep that a secret? Do you think I want them all to know how I acted, as well that I allowed myself to be put into that awkward situation? Of course not. Does this story change your opinion of me? If so, that's the reason why I did not share it before now. I have shared my story to this group to show an example of how these situations are complicated, incredibly personal, and also deeply emotional and frightening. I don't believe this kind of situation has ever happened at RIPE, but I don't know if it has, because it's possible that just one person has had this happen to them, they didn't know where to turn, and they made the same choice I did and left the community and stopped contributing. All of us are human, and all of us, myself included, have acted in ways we're not proud of. I can think of one incident where I made what I thought of as the time as a funny joke, which in fact was hurtful to the person I said it to. I think that many of us are afraid that we will be banned from RIPE because we do stupid things. However, you are assuming that your fellow RIPE attendees are vindictive people -- instead of people who are willing to talk to the person (in this case me) who was an asshole, tell them why they were hurt, and give the asshole a chance to apologize for their behavior and try to be a better person. The CoC is really meant for cases like the story above that I shared. Leslie Carr On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 6:28 AM Sascha Luck [ml] <lists-ripe@c4inet.net> wrote:
All,
the CoC draft version 3.0 [1], while it is called the "RIPE Meeting Code of Conduct", makes reference to the PDP as detailed below.
- in "Scope" it claims authority over "RIPE mailing lists and the RIPE Forum" - "In cases where a report involves a RIPE Working Group Mailing List, the RIPE CoC Team will consult with the respective RIPE Working Group Chairs to gather context or any other relevant information that may help with its investigation." - One of the possible sanctions described is: "Not allowing someone to participate further in RIPE Meetings and/or *other RIPE community spaces*, for a set period or an indefinite period"
Generally the tenor of the document is that, yes, it is intended to apply to the PDP-relevant processes and spaces and I don't think that fact is disputed.
This is fundamentally incompatible with ripe-1 and ripe-710. If you, like me, consider those documents our "constitution", this CoC violates the letter as well as the spirit. If this reads like politics, that is because it *is*.
1) I consider ripe-1 and ripe-710 the "constitution" that provides for all of the below[2][3]
2) I consider the PDP and its WG mailing lists our "legislative".
3) The RIPE NCC could, in a very loose sense, be called our "executive". Like any democratic executive, it governs by the consent of the governed and is charged with implementing policy made through the PDP.
4) I consider the WG chair collective as some sort of combined "Speaker of Parliament", "Head of State" and "Constitutional Court". Their purpose is to steer the PDP and ensure that processes are followed in accordance to ripe-710 and ripe-1. They also determine that a consensus has been reached. (They "sign a proposal into law", so to speak.)
5) Through the PDP policy is developed, policy that affects every internet user in the RIPE Service Region. It affects more people and organisations than any law made even in the European Parliament.
6) According to ripe-710, the PDP is "open to all", "transparent", "from the bottom up" and "Conclusions are reached by consensus". To me, this means that every voice that wishes to speak must be heard.
7) Policy proposals, "bills" in other words, are often contentious, much like proposed law in other venues. Debate has, in the past, often been robust, raucous and occasionally vociferous. This is as it should be, this broad a community will rarely be of one mind and people have different ideas. Dissent, as in any democracy, is essential, even more so in a consensus-based system.
How does the proposed CoC affect all this? For one, it is not transparent: Decisions are made behind closed doors, decisions that will - the draft document is clear on this - lead to voices being silenced and being silenced *silently*. It is not "open to all": it is only open to those who have not fallen afoul of the CoC or its enforcers. It is not consensus-based: "consensus of the approved" is worthless. It is not "bottom-up": the CoC Team sits at the very top of the chain and determines who can be a member of the RIPE community and who can't. Finally, it is open to abuse and, arguably, *designed* to be abused. It opens the way to anyone who is not happy ("comfortable" in the words of the draft) with the outcome or direction of a PDP discussion to rely on anonymous denunciation and intransparent processes to have all dissent silenced. The draft contains no reference to fairness or to a right of the accused to be heard and to defend themselves, which is a perversion of natural justice[4]. There is some kind of right-of-appeal, but it's an appeal to the same people who issued a "conviction" in the first place.
Applied to the PDP and its participants, this, in political terms, is a putsch. It establishes a cabal that has the power to determine who may participate in the PDP in the first place. This may lead to the establishment of a sham consensus as all dissenting voices have been silenced, which the remaining community may not even be aware of.
Policy developed under this system should be considered in violation of ripe-1 and ripe-710 and thus "unconstitutional".
I'm not sure where the NCC stands in regard to obligations imposed on it by illegitimately created policy. This may be a question for the membership.
There was a call for solutions, rather than just complaints, earlier. In this spirit I offer two possibilities:
1) Apply a "parliamentary privilege"[5] to PDP discussions. This means that only the WG chair collective has jurisdiction over PDP discussions and can "punish" participants - but with full transparency. 2) Let the "CoC team" investigate complaints but leave any decisions up to the WG chair collective. Again, any bans, temporary, or permanent must be fully transparent.
As an aside, has anyone considered the difficulty of enforcing something like this on MLs where no identification requirement exists and someone "banned" can just re-sub under a different name/email address?
In any case, I'd like to hear some discussion on this. Speak up. please. It may be the last chance you have.
rgds, Sascha Luck
[1] https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/ripe-meetings/ripe-meeting-code-of... [2] https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/roundtable/march-2005/presentation... [3] https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-710 [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_justice [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_privilege
hi leslie: i agree with you, in this context and with the proposal's intent within the ripe culture. <tactless> i suspect that there are a number of us who are made uncomfortable, not by this proposal, but because, at the same time, a coc change process is occurring in the ietf, where it is being used to suppress dissent with the corporatisation and destruction of the structure and to actually protect a clique of bullies. </tactless> but again, i agree with you, and support the coc proposal. randy
Randy, <frank and direct> Of course I am flattered by your trust in the RIPE community. I am worried about just the abuse that you mention in the IETF context. I see the RIPE community changing and I remain concerned about abuse in the future. Yes we need to evolve our CoC *** with the appropriate checks and balances against abuse ***. <emotional> The violent reactions I get when I say this are worrisome and they hurt! Ah, full circle back to the subject. Ironic, isn‘t it? Maybe I should see a trusted contact? </all> Daniel --- Sent from a handheld device.
On 20. Oct 2019, at 17:46, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>wrote:
hi leslie:
i agree with you, in this context and with the proposal's intent within the ripe culture.
<tactless>
i suspect that there are a number of us who are made uncomfortable, not by this proposal, but because, at the same time, a coc change process is occurring in the ietf, where it is being used to suppress dissent with the corporatisation and destruction of the structure and to actually protect a clique of bullies.
</tactless>
but again, i agree with you, and support the coc proposal.
randy
hi daniel,
Of course I am flattered by your trust in the RIPE community.
don't take it too personally :)
I am worried about just the abuse that you mention in the IETF context. I see the RIPE community changing and I remain concerned about abuse in the future. Yes we need to evolve our CoC *** with the appropriate checks and balances against abuse ***.
way back when, i was banned from the nanog list, likely for some kind of snark. the poolpah which followed drove nanog from merit management to a steering committee of an independent organisation. so your argument has my sympathy for sure, even without the ietf turning authoritarian. but, though i can not walk in the shoes of those who the coc is intended to protect, i have seen things i would rather not have, and the stories seem widespread, disgusting, and enraging.
The violent reactions I get when I say this are worrisome and they hurt!
well, the level of discourse has tended to the strident. my assumption is that it [ partially ] stems from frustration. i hope that progress should help ameliorate this. when i warned of the weaponisation of the coc in the ietf, it was meant as a hint. but, imiho, in both cultures, the danger lies in the definitions and judging of bad behavior, not so much that ostracism is the punishment. and how do we clarify behavior without going down a rathole of complexity? we need to strongly defend against sexual, religious, ... harassment. i assume there is no disagreement on this. but the ietf wants to criminalize snark on a mailing list. how does the ripe community reasonably and simply deal with the harrassment without succumbing to the disease of behavior fascism? randy
Leslie, On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 08:00:15AM -0700, Leslie wrote:
California, 5 and 6am conference calls are pretty difficult. I cannot stay silent on this matter, and watch the community that I love accuse the diversity WG of trying to destroy RIPE.
a recurring thread in these CoC debates is that intent doesn't matter, only outcomes do. In that spirit, it doesn't matter whether the effects on the PDP are intentional or just an unfortunate side effect...
Sascha, you may not realize that RIPE already has a code of conduct, https://ripe77.ripe.net/on-site/code-of-conduct/ - where attendees may be asked to leave a meeting and "other actions" may be taken. I like the new draft because it clarifies how and what actions may be taken.
I should clarify again that my email is solely concerned with the PDP which, in RIPE, happens on mailing lists. RIPE Meetings and what the CoC means for them will be the subject of another email. Under the existing CoC, there is no "enforcement team" and no (explicit) jurisdiction over WG mailing lists. It is currently up to the WG chairs to "keep order" on their MLs and in the 20 or so years I've been following WG lists, have - I think - done a good job.
I am not comfortable with your proposal of the entire WG chair committee being set as the "jury" for these cases. The WG chairs are a group of people selected for their expertise and willingness to give back to the community in specific technical areas, not for their willingness to go to trainings of how to handle harassment cases and knowing how to treat these very difficult and emotional situations with empathy and confidentiality.
I don't think this is a possibility on a mailing list. Everything there happens in the open and every subscriber can see what goes on. If there is outright harassment, it will be immediately obvious what is happening. I think I've seen something like it only once and the chairs in question took actions then.
I don't believe this kind of situation has ever happened at RIPE, but I don't know if it has,
I'm led to believe that at least one similar incident *has* occurred at a RIPE meeting. There is no reason to think that the RIPE community is any better or worse than NANOG or any other community that is basically open to anyone.
This is not the kind of story I ever wanted to share with anyone beyond my closest circle of friends. I felt a combination of scared and embarrassed (what if it was all my fault and I led him on?). I count 28 WG chairs -- many of whom I know personally and respect and I want them to have the highest regard for me professionally. If they heard the story, do you really think that 28 people would keep that a secret? Do you think I want them all to know how I acted, as well that I allowed myself to be put into that awkward situation? Of course not. Does this story change your opinion of me? If so, that's the reason why I did not share it before now.
Again, I can't see a situation like this happening on a mailing list - and if it did, it would be far from confidential.
All of us are human, and all of us, myself included, have acted in ways we're not proud of. I can think of one incident where I made what I thought of as the time as a funny joke, which in fact was hurtful to the person I said it to. I think that many of us are afraid that we will be banned from RIPE because we do stupid things. However, you are assuming that your fellow RIPE attendees are vindictive people -- instead of people who are willing to talk to the person (in this case me) who was an asshole, tell them why they were hurt, and give the asshole a chance to apologize for their behavior and try to be a better person.
It is what I would do, and if someone persisted I can afford to ignore them. However, RIPE is a broad church and, like any community, it contains people who strike me as petty and vindictive. My concerns are largely with giving these people a tool to strike from cover to remove their "enemies" from the community and suppress dissent.
The CoC is really meant for cases like the story above that I shared.
I happen to agree, but I am not comfortable with including jurisdiction over participation in the PDP in this proposal. In the "real world" (at least in civilised, democratic societies), no matter how much of an arsehole one may be, one still gets to tick one's box on the ballot paper. (convicted traitors may lose the franchise but I don't think that is an issue for this CoC)
Leslie Carr
rgds, Sascha Luck
On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 9:30 AM Sascha Luck [ml] <lists-ripe@c4inet.net> wrote:
Leslie,
On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 08:00:15AM -0700, Leslie wrote:
California, 5 and 6am conference calls are pretty difficult. I cannot stay silent on this matter, and watch the community that I love accuse the diversity WG of trying to destroy RIPE.
a recurring thread in these CoC debates is that intent doesn't matter, only outcomes do. In that spirit, it doesn't matter whether the effects on the PDP are intentional or just an unfortunate side effect...
Sascha, you may not realize that RIPE already has a code of conduct, https://ripe77.ripe.net/on-site/code-of-conduct/ - where attendees may be asked to leave a meeting and "other actions" may be taken. I like the new draft because it clarifies how and what actions may be taken.
I should clarify again that my email is solely concerned with the PDP which, in RIPE, happens on mailing lists. RIPE Meetings and what the CoC means for them will be the subject of another email.
<snip> Thanks for clarifying that! Leslie
Hi, I've been in the RIPE community and in the Dutch NOG community for quite a long time ... I was informed by one of the women in the industry that I respect very much, a couple years ago, to the details of grabbing up to a point of bruises .. being pushed to a corner in an elevator in a hotel or jerks sending sexual explicit pictures or showing up at a hotel room door and demanding (not asking) for sex in the middle of the night ... Once being told what was going on, during some of the conferences / meetings and having spoken with other women about the topic, I learned that it wasn't a single incident ..And my heart still weeps when I hear more stories .. The topic isn't unique for just some NOG meetings or RIPE or EPF / GPF / NANOG etc. In-appropriate (sexual/aggressive) behaviour is never acceptable. And we need to speak up and stand for the people that are on the receiving end of bullying or aggressive / sexual assaulting behaviour. Not everyone is feeling strong enough to defend him/herself and I would hate it if we miss the wonderful women / men / gay / lesbian / bi / trans / non binary mix of people that we try to include in our community. And even if someone decided at the end of the evening that it was fun, but doesn't want to move further, that should be respected. A smile doesn't mean, someone is entitled to something .. I remember a specific situation in Denmark where we were chilling in the Denmark (RIPE72) venue lobby and we helped a lady who was homeless, by letting her take a shower in one of the rooms, join on some drinks and we offered her a room for the night. She got a fully paid hotel room for the night, I cleared my stuff from the room and slept in a separate bed in a room of one of the Dutch regulars. The next day, the room was cleared, (and soo was the mini bar.. ) but as the group that was present on that evening, we knew we did the right thing. For me, that is the ultimate RIPE community 'feeling' ... We look after each other. I would do it again in a heartbeat. She was properly looked after, one of the women present guided her for a safe shower in her room and when the group was back together, we jointly decided that it was the right thing to do, as it was too cold outside. On the topic back to the CoC ... I understand the requirement and urge us to proceed with clear version to move forwards. One of the items I would like to address is that we have in our community quite some people that may be on the autism spectrum or on the edge of it .. They might have some issues with deciding on what is socially acceptable or what the consequences are of certain text in the CoC .. They might not be able to decide, based on the text what is acceptable behaviour .. but not on a predatory way .. I would strongly suggest that we try to include them as much in these discussions and perhaps even better, ask some if they would be willing to proof read the document and provide feedback on what they think based on the CoC. If their reaction is going to be, I don’t understand the consequences of the document and I will just not give a hand or speak to someone when I'm at the RIPE meeting, or not come at all, we may need to look at the wording. On the topic of this should go through the PDP ? ... I think that the RIPE NCC should have a strong CoC ( that should also include the trainings and member lunches btw, not only the meetings.. ) The community can provide input, but as the official organiser, the NCC MUST (in my opinion) take a legal liability point here and draw the line of what is acceptable behaviour .. I think the NCC MUST take a lead here, with the input from the community and have the final say here and implement the new CoC asap. Regards, Erik Bais On 20/10/2019, 17:01, "ripe-list on behalf of Leslie" <ripe-list-bounces@ripe.net on behalf of geekgirl@gmail.com> wrote: I've been keeping pretty quiet on this matter, as I have stepped back my involvement in RIPE. This stepping back was 100% due to the fact that I am not doing much network engineering any more, and living in California, 5 and 6am conference calls are pretty difficult. I cannot stay silent on this matter, and watch the community that I love accuse the diversity WG of trying to destroy RIPE. For background, my first experience with a network engineering community was NANOG. It was not a welcoming community, especially as a young woman trying to grow her career. There is a reason that I was willing for a number of years to pay for a transatlantic flight, and to wake up for early morning conference calls! The RIPE community is an amazing one, full of great people who are really trying to push forward the best policies of running the internet. Sascha, you may not realize that RIPE already has a code of conduct, https://ripe77.ripe.net/on-site/code-of-conduct/ - where attendees may be asked to leave a meeting and "other actions" may be taken. I like the new draft because it clarifies how and what actions may be taken. I am not comfortable with your proposal of the entire WG chair committee being set as the "jury" for these cases. The WG chairs are a group of people selected for their expertise and willingness to give back to the community in specific technical areas, not for their willingness to go to trainings of how to handle harassment cases and knowing how to treat these very difficult and emotional situations with empathy and confidentiality. I will give all of you an example from my past -- where I did not report this issue, as the conference had no Code of Conduct or stated way to report it. I was at another conference, in the states. I met a person who seemed like a nice gentleman, we were hanging out and flirting a bit, and went to go get a few drinks after the day's sessions had ended. We kissed, and then I had decided I was done for the night, that was as far as I wanted to go, and I was going to go back to my hotel room and go to sleep. The man found my twitter handle (not too hard to do!) and started messaging me on there -- I told him I wasn't interested and was going to bed. He then started to message some more threatening messages about how I led him on and it wasn't fair and I owed him sex. I messaged him telling him to never message me again, to go get some water, and go to bed. He then went to the front desk of the hotel and had them call my room -- which was quite a bit scary. I obviously hung up on him. Then the front desk called me again, asking if they wanted me to give him my room number. Obviously I said no and asked them to please make sure that the man doesn't come anywhere near my floor. Then it was all over. I never went to that conference again, and I stopped contributing to that open source project. This is not the kind of story I ever wanted to share with anyone beyond my closest circle of friends. I felt a combination of scared and embarrassed (what if it was all my fault and I led him on?). I count 28 WG chairs -- many of whom I know personally and respect and I want them to have the highest regard for me professionally. If they heard the story, do you really think that 28 people would keep that a secret? Do you think I want them all to know how I acted, as well that I allowed myself to be put into that awkward situation? Of course not. Does this story change your opinion of me? If so, that's the reason why I did not share it before now. I have shared my story to this group to show an example of how these situations are complicated, incredibly personal, and also deeply emotional and frightening. I don't believe this kind of situation has ever happened at RIPE, but I don't know if it has, because it's possible that just one person has had this happen to them, they didn't know where to turn, and they made the same choice I did and left the community and stopped contributing. All of us are human, and all of us, myself included, have acted in ways we're not proud of. I can think of one incident where I made what I thought of as the time as a funny joke, which in fact was hurtful to the person I said it to. I think that many of us are afraid that we will be banned from RIPE because we do stupid things. However, you are assuming that your fellow RIPE attendees are vindictive people -- instead of people who are willing to talk to the person (in this case me) who was an asshole, tell them why they were hurt, and give the asshole a chance to apologize for their behavior and try to be a better person. The CoC is really meant for cases like the story above that I shared. Leslie Carr On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 6:28 AM Sascha Luck [ml] <lists-ripe@c4inet.net> wrote: > > All, > > the CoC draft version 3.0 [1], while it is called the "RIPE Meeting > Code of Conduct", makes reference to the PDP as detailed below. > > - in "Scope" it claims authority over "RIPE mailing lists and the > RIPE Forum" > - "In cases where a report involves a RIPE Working Group Mailing > List, the RIPE CoC Team will consult with the respective RIPE > Working Group Chairs to gather context or any other relevant > information that may help with its investigation." > - One of the possible sanctions described is: "Not allowing > someone to participate further in RIPE Meetings and/or *other > RIPE community spaces*, for a set period or an indefinite period" > > Generally the tenor of the document is that, yes, it is intended > to apply to the PDP-relevant processes and spaces and I don't > think that fact is disputed. > > This is fundamentally incompatible with ripe-1 and ripe-710. If > you, like me, consider those documents our "constitution", this > CoC violates the letter as well as the spirit. If this reads like > politics, that is because it *is*. > > 1) I consider ripe-1 and ripe-710 the "constitution" that > provides for all of the below[2][3] > > 2) I consider the PDP and its WG mailing lists our "legislative". > > 3) The RIPE NCC could, in a very loose sense, be called our > "executive". Like any democratic executive, it governs by the > consent of the governed and is charged with implementing policy > made through the PDP. > > 4) I consider the WG chair collective as some sort of combined > "Speaker of Parliament", "Head of State" and "Constitutional > Court". Their purpose is to steer the PDP and ensure that > processes are followed in accordance to ripe-710 and ripe-1. They > also determine that a consensus has been reached. (They "sign a > proposal into law", so to speak.) > > 5) Through the PDP policy is developed, policy that affects every > internet user in the RIPE Service Region. It affects more people > and organisations than any law made even in the European > Parliament. > > 6) According to ripe-710, the PDP is "open to all", > "transparent", "from the bottom up" and "Conclusions are reached > by consensus". To me, this means that every voice that wishes to > speak must be heard. > > 7) Policy proposals, "bills" in other words, are often > contentious, much like proposed law in other venues. Debate has, > in the past, often been robust, raucous and occasionally > vociferous. This is as it should be, this broad a community will > rarely be of one mind and people have different ideas. Dissent, > as in any democracy, is essential, even more so in a > consensus-based system. > > How does the proposed CoC affect all this? For one, it is not > transparent: Decisions are made behind closed doors, decisions > that will - the draft document is clear on this - lead to voices > being silenced and being silenced *silently*. It is not "open to > all": it is only open to those who have not fallen afoul of the > CoC or its enforcers. It is not consensus-based: "consensus of the > approved" is worthless. It is not "bottom-up": the CoC Team sits > at the very top of the chain and determines who can be a member > of the RIPE community and who can't. > Finally, it is open to abuse and, arguably, *designed* to be > abused. It opens the way to anyone who is not happy > ("comfortable" in the words of the draft) with the outcome or > direction of a PDP discussion to rely on anonymous denunciation > and intransparent processes to have all dissent silenced. > The draft contains no reference to fairness or to a right of the > accused to be heard and to defend themselves, which is a > perversion of natural justice[4]. There is some kind of > right-of-appeal, but it's an appeal to the same people who issued > a "conviction" in the first place. > > Applied to the PDP and its participants, this, in political > terms, is a putsch. It establishes a cabal that has the power to > determine who may participate in the PDP in the first place. This > may lead to the establishment of a sham consensus as all > dissenting voices have been silenced, which the remaining > community may not even be aware of. > > Policy developed under this system should be considered in > violation of ripe-1 and ripe-710 and thus "unconstitutional". > > I'm not sure where the NCC stands in regard to obligations > imposed on it by illegitimately created policy. This may be a > question for the membership. > > There was a call for solutions, rather than just complaints, > earlier. In this spirit I offer two possibilities: > > 1) Apply a "parliamentary privilege"[5] to PDP discussions. This > means that only the WG chair collective has jurisdiction over PDP > discussions and can "punish" participants - but with full > transparency. > 2) Let the "CoC team" investigate complaints but leave any > decisions up to the WG chair collective. Again, any bans, > temporary, or permanent must be fully transparent. > > As an aside, has anyone considered the difficulty of enforcing > something like this on MLs where no identification requirement > exists and someone "banned" can just re-sub under a different > name/email address? > > In any case, I'd like to hear some discussion on this. Speak up. > please. It may be the last chance you have. > > rgds, > Sascha Luck > > [1] https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/ripe-meetings/ripe-meeting-code-of... > [2] https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/roundtable/march-2005/presentation... > [3] https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-710 > [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_justice > [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_privilege >
Hi Leslie, That is an awful thing too happen to you :'(
All of us are human, and all of us, myself included, have acted in ways we're not proud of.
Yep
[...] However, you are assuming that your fellow RIPE attendees are vindictive people -- instead of people who are willing to talk to the person (in this case me) who was an asshole, tell them why they were hurt, and give the asshole a chance to apologize for their behavior and try to be a better person.
This. As far as I am concerned anybody who realised they behaved like an asshole, apologised and tries to become a better person is welcome at a RIPE meeting. Anybody who doesn't (or just pretends they do, but then doesn't change their behaviour) can be shown the door as quickly physically possible. Everybody makes mistakes. What defines somebody is if/how they fix them. Cheers, Sander
It is always heartbreaking to hear stories like this, and it must be very, very hard to share them, so thank you Leslie. It definitely helps in understading how bad it can get, especially for those of us things like this don't happen to, and may still not be aware how frequently they occur. While not anywhere near as bad as this, I do have a tiny story of my own. My first experience speaking in public happened to be at RIPE. I was fresh out of college, nervous as hell, and very glad I managed to stammer through presenting my work. One of the first comments on the microphone was a petty insult, with no constructive criticism, and seemingly only intended to burn me down. Or so it definitely felt. Had it not been for the community to pick me up right there and then, I might very well have decided that public discussion and public speaking wasn't for me. I am very glad now it did not go in this direction, and like to think I have gotten pretty good at it by now. But it was the RIPE community that helped me get there, and I am convinced the RIPE community wants things to be better, both for small things like microphone etiquette and big ones such as sexual harassment. I have read this CoC and support it. Having said that, I do have a few small suggestions and comments, some of which also in response to earlier comments made. - I have seen the issue mentioned that the process for handling complaints isn't defined well enough, mainly in the case where severe sanctions are applied. I think 'conduct' is such a broad scope, that a specific process cannot be hard-defined, outside of the first few steps (acknowledge, declare conflict-of-interest, determine what happened, decide on followup, if any). Would it help to have this spelled out more explicitely, like, say, the Python community does (they have a separate document for that, outside of the CoC itself: https://www.python.org/psf/conduct/enforcement/)? - I personally do not share the worry of the CoC team pushing political agenda's and silencing people, but if this a common concern, I think some checks and balances can be added there as well, though i'd be a bit wary of adding too much process in general (also goes for previous comment, btw). - Regarding hard sanctions, there is already a mention that these are disccused with the RIPE chair and the NCC, but I think it should also specify who gets to take the final decision there (which may be all of them together). Kind regards, Jelte own hat
All, I'm somewhat disconcerted by the fact that despite stating clearly, and clarifying again, that my concerns are about this CoC being applied to PDP mailing lists and the possibility of it being used to cleanse dissenters from the PDP - something I now consider not only likely but almost certain - nobody has seen fit to engage my arguments. Instead the thread has been hijacked for red herring stories about men (of course!) being horrible at RIPE and other *meetings*. Please explain to me how banning people on *mailing lists* protects vulnerable people from being harrassed at *meetings* thanks, Sascha Luck
participants (7)
-
Daniel Karrenberg -
Erik Bais -
Jelte -
Leslie -
Randy Bush -
Sander Steffann -
Sascha Luck [ml]