On 31-05-2022 17:21, Leo Vegoda wrote:

Hi,

I asked this list in April [1] for input on the draft Code of Conduct Process. We've not had any feedback yet, which makes it difficult to know how our draft should change or whether it is good enough.

Please take a look at the draft and either identify areas where we need to improve it or send a simple statement of support.

We also held a BoF at RIPE 84. We discussed [2] recruiting for the team that will use this process. The recording has been published and runs slightly over 30 minutes. If you weren't able to attend the BoF but have thoughts to share with the TF, please either send them here or to coc-tf@ripe.net. Both lists are publicly archived.

Kind regards,

Leo Vegoda

[1] https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ripe-list/2022-April/002513.html [2] https://ripe84.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/bofs/#tues

Leo and TF members, thank you for spending time and effort on this. It certainly is something that is not fun by any description. Here are some suggestions from the perspective of a long time RIPE participant and author of a few RIPE documents: - add references to relevant RIPE documents such as the CoC itself, the RIPE ToR, maybe others - add a section/appendix describing the task force and the process by which the document was written and how consensus was/will be established. examples: ripe-714, ripe-727 'genesis' - add a document that describes the process for constituting the 'CoC Team' and for adding/removing people. without this document it is difficult to evaluate a process document. - for any action involving removal from events the document should be explicit that such actions have to be enforced by the meeting organiser and describe how this works. get explicit agreement from the RIPE NCC to enforce these actions and obligate third party hosts to enforce them. mention this in the document. sidestepping this is a recipe for future trouble. - for any action beyond very temporary removals/bans the RIPE chair needs to make the final decision. removing people from the community is something that the RIPE chair should not delegate. spirit([ripe-714]), answer to question 1 of labs article - i am not sure that it is a good idea to retain personal data of the 'subject of the report' in cases where no CoC violation is found. otherwise the data retention proposed looks ok to me. answer to question 2 of labs article. - add the requirement for a 'transparency report' on actions by the CoC team. The short report in Berlin was a good start. Again, thanks and respect for the work you all put in. These are just suggestions. I feel much too greybearded to argue about this stuff. Happy to explain/expand if this is too terse for full comprehension. ;-) Daniel