Updated Draft RIPE Code of Conduct Published for Community Review
Dear RIPE community, An updated draft RIPE Code of Conduct (CoC) is now published for your review. As this is intended to cover all participation within RIPE, it applies to interactions over the Internet, mailing lists, as well as in-person at RIPE Meetings. You can find the document here: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-documents/other-documents/ripe-c... This draft keeps most of the text in v3.0[1], which was developed by the RIPE Diversity TF. It also draws from CoCs that are in use in other communities, including the Python CoC[2]. The biggest change is that the updated draft covers scope and behaviour only. It doesn’t touch on process or the CoC Team – these aspects will be addressed in two separate documents that are still to come. Please review the draft and share any comments on the RIPE Discussion List by Friday, 2 April 2021. We welcome suggested changes, but if you don’t see problems with the draft then statements of support are also helpful. The RIPE Chair Team will evaluate your comments and determine whether there is consensus on this draft or additional work is needed. While we would prefer comments to be shared on the RIPE Discussion List, we recognise that some people might have feedback that they would like to share in private. If you want to provide feedback in private you can contact members of the CoC TF or the RIPE Chair Team directly. Some key changes in this version: - The goal of “a neutral, transparent and open framework for report handling” has been removed and will be covered in the upcoming document that describes process. - The scope is defined as “all participation in RIPE.” - Groups and events with separate governance from RIPE may adopt this CoC but will need to manage their own implementation. - A new section covers how the CoC relates to national law. - A new section lists desired behaviours along with an updated list of unacceptable behaviours. - Both lists are arranged alphabetically, to avoid suggesting a hierarchy. We look forward to reading your thoughts on the current draft. Kind regards, Leo Vegoda On behalf of the RIPE Code of Conduct TF [1] RIPE Meeting Code of Conduct 3.0 - Draft https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/ripe-meetings/ripe-meeting-code-of... [2] Python Community Code of Conduct https://www.python.org/psf/conduct/
An updated draft RIPE Code of Conduct (CoC) is now published for your review. As this is intended to cover all participation within RIPE, it applies to interactions over the Internet, mailing lists, as well as in-person at RIPE Meetings.
i can live with it. but it does seem a bit over-prescriptive and legal. the community does seem to have grown more over-prescriptive and legal in general. i suspect rob would have said it in a dozen words. when asked to make rules for fidonet, tj said don't be excessively annoying. don't be easily annoyed. but those were different times. and we have had some ugly problems that should not be shoved under the rug. i just wonder if the document's detail and rigidity will pay off or be bait for nit-picking arguments and excuses. but, again, to be clear, i can live with it. randy --- randy@psg.com `gpg --locate-external-keys --auto-key-locate wkd randy@psg.com` signatures are back, thanks to dmarc header mangling
Dear Leo, On 04/03/2021 19:25, Randy Bush wrote:
An updated draft RIPE Code of Conduct (CoC) is now published
thank you - and the task force - for this work. It's a "good enough" document! I am speaking both as a member of the community that, due to my gender, belong to a marginalised group; and as a participant in the "Diversity Task Force", and as a privileged insider and old-timer with a position of relative power, AND as someone in a role of "service" as a Trusted Contact. So this new document satisfies the needs of my first 3 roles; and the fourth - not really. Therefore... While I understand that the follow-up documents will take some longer time, what I'm missing is still a *short* definition of the "team": "The "RIPE CoC Team" is a group of volunteers from the community, tasked to handle escalations of the CoC violations. How they are elected, trained and governed is described in a follow-up document. " ... fairly early in the document: just before "national law" section. And I would really like to see / like you to add (just before "Reporting Procedures") CALL TO ACTION that EMPOWERS everyone in the community to act! What You Can Do: 1. Please be aware of your own behavior; if you notice that you have violated CoC, STOP, apologize, and repair the harm / damage done. 2. If you notice that another community member is violating CoC, ask them to STOP, and to start behaving in an inclusive way 3. If someone is telling you to STOP behaving in an un-acceptible way, please listen to them and change what you are doing 4. If the direct approach does not work, escalate by approaching "The RIPE CoC Team". I see that this would be making the document longer, and I still think it's valuable -- it's giving people options to control what they are doing, and to speak up. Of course, this is just a suggested text -- I'm sure someone can make this into one sentence.... if you all agree it's a good thing to add. Nits: - please make the date, authors and version# integral part of the doc - "for more than 1/4 century"->since 1989->much clearer& will age better - make the url ripe.net/coc - rename "Behaviour" title to "Inclusive Behaviour" (or encouraged, acceptable, desired, expected... behaviour ) - "people protected" -> remove bullet points, make it a CSV line of text :) in order to make the document shorter ("the people" too!) In conclusion: As part of the Trusted Contacts team, I understand that, in this transition period, we would be dealing with communities complaints based on both old & new CoC, until there is a new "team". I am fine with that, since the new CoC is not much different from the previous, and a slight improvement too. Regards, Vesna
You can find the document here:
https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-documents/other-documents/ripe-c...
Dear RIPE community, There has been relatively little feedback on ths draft Code of Conduct so far. We would be grateful if you could share any comments on the RIPE Discussion List by Friday, 2 April 2021. We welcome suggested changes, but if you don’t see problems with the draft then statements of support are also helpful. The RIPE Chair Team will evaluate your comments and determine whether there is consensus on this draft or additional work is needed. Many thanks, Leo Vegoda On behalf of the RIPE Code of Conduct TF On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 5:02 AM Leo Vegoda <leo@vegoda.org> wrote:
Dear RIPE community,
An updated draft RIPE Code of Conduct (CoC) is now published for your review. As this is intended to cover all participation within RIPE, it applies to interactions over the Internet, mailing lists, as well as in-person at RIPE Meetings.
You can find the document here:
https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-documents/other-documents/ripe-c...
This draft keeps most of the text in v3.0[1], which was developed by the RIPE Diversity TF. It also draws from CoCs that are in use in other communities, including the Python CoC[2]. The biggest change is that the updated draft covers scope and behaviour only. It doesn’t touch on process or the CoC Team – these aspects will be addressed in two separate documents that are still to come.
Please review the draft and share any comments on the RIPE Discussion List by Friday, 2 April 2021. We welcome suggested changes, but if you don’t see problems with the draft then statements of support are also helpful. The RIPE Chair Team will evaluate your comments and determine whether there is consensus on this draft or additional work is needed.
While we would prefer comments to be shared on the RIPE Discussion List, we recognise that some people might have feedback that they would like to share in private. If you want to provide feedback in private you can contact members of the CoC TF or the RIPE Chair Team directly.
Some key changes in this version:
- The goal of “a neutral, transparent and open framework for report handling” has been removed and will be covered in the upcoming document that describes process. - The scope is defined as “all participation in RIPE.” - Groups and events with separate governance from RIPE may adopt this CoC but will need to manage their own implementation. - A new section covers how the CoC relates to national law. - A new section lists desired behaviours along with an updated list of unacceptable behaviours. - Both lists are arranged alphabetically, to avoid suggesting a hierarchy.
We look forward to reading your thoughts on the current draft.
Kind regards,
Leo Vegoda On behalf of the RIPE Code of Conduct TF
[1] RIPE Meeting Code of Conduct 3.0 - Draft https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/ripe-meetings/ripe-meeting-code-of... [2] Python Community Code of Conduct https://www.python.org/psf/conduct/
hi leo,
There has been relatively little feedback on ths draft Code of Conduct so far. We would be grateful if you could share any comments on the RIPE Discussion List by Friday, 2 April 2021. We welcome suggested changes, but if you don’t see problems with the draft then statements of support are also helpful. The RIPE Chair Team will evaluate your comments and determine whether there is consensus on this draft or additional work is needed.
it is not long or complex enough :) randy, getting his snark in before the dreadline --- randy@psg.com `gpg --locate-external-keys --auto-key-locate wkd randy@psg.com` signatures are back, thanks to dmarc header butchery
Leo and all who have worked on this, thank you for the investment of time and enthusiasm. One aspect that may be useful to include in the Code of Conduct is respect for others ideas/ insights / work product - this could be slides from a presentation, comment/insight on an industry topic or an idea brought before a WG or raised in discussion. Encouraging people to acknowledge and note the originator and ask permission to use slides or data they have created, in advance of using it. The second point on this that I would see as helpful (but may already be in place - Fergal's team may know?) is that this Code is shared with the suppliers of event services to the community - i.e. hotels, conference venues, social venues. Within the RIPE region there are varying cultural norms and acceptance of expressions of an individual's identity. As part of booking an event for RIPE, it might be useful to have this as part of the booking in order that staff in those suppliers are aware that the community expects certain conduct. Best wishes and again, thank you all for your work on this. Eileen On 18/03/2021 17:21, Leo Vegoda wrote:
Dear RIPE community,
There has been relatively little feedback on ths draft Code of Conduct so far. We would be grateful if you could share any comments on the RIPE Discussion List by Friday, 2 April 2021. We welcome suggested changes, but if you don’t see problems with the draft then statements of support are also helpful. The RIPE Chair Team will evaluate your comments and determine whether there is consensus on this draft or additional work is needed.
Many thanks,
Leo Vegoda On behalf of the RIPE Code of Conduct TF
On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 5:02 AM Leo Vegoda <leo@vegoda.org> wrote:
Dear RIPE community,
An updated draft RIPE Code of Conduct (CoC) is now published for your review. As this is intended to cover all participation within RIPE, it applies to interactions over the Internet, mailing lists, as well as in-person at RIPE Meetings.
You can find the document here:
https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-documents/other-documents/ripe-c...
This draft keeps most of the text in v3.0[1], which was developed by the RIPE Diversity TF. It also draws from CoCs that are in use in other communities, including the Python CoC[2]. The biggest change is that the updated draft covers scope and behaviour only. It doesn’t touch on process or the CoC Team – these aspects will be addressed in two separate documents that are still to come.
Please review the draft and share any comments on the RIPE Discussion List by Friday, 2 April 2021. We welcome suggested changes, but if you don’t see problems with the draft then statements of support are also helpful. The RIPE Chair Team will evaluate your comments and determine whether there is consensus on this draft or additional work is needed.
While we would prefer comments to be shared on the RIPE Discussion List, we recognise that some people might have feedback that they would like to share in private. If you want to provide feedback in private you can contact members of the CoC TF or the RIPE Chair Team directly.
Some key changes in this version:
- The goal of “a neutral, transparent and open framework for report handling” has been removed and will be covered in the upcoming document that describes process. - The scope is defined as “all participation in RIPE.” - Groups and events with separate governance from RIPE may adopt this CoC but will need to manage their own implementation. - A new section covers how the CoC relates to national law. - A new section lists desired behaviours along with an updated list of unacceptable behaviours. - Both lists are arranged alphabetically, to avoid suggesting a hierarchy.
We look forward to reading your thoughts on the current draft.
Kind regards,
Leo Vegoda On behalf of the RIPE Code of Conduct TF
[1] RIPE Meeting Code of Conduct 3.0 - Draft https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/ripe-meetings/ripe-meeting-code-of... [2] Python Community Code of Conduct https://www.python.org/psf/conduct/
Hi Leo, all, How come we can pretend that the RIPE community is open, inclusive, transparent, etc., if when we do this kind of work, we don't allow volunteer participants to join? How come we can have a CoC that must be respected by all if since day one on the work for this, somebody that volunteered has been excluded? Let me explain, because only the chairs and the CoC TF knows the context of this up to now. On October 26th I asked to join the mailing list and the CoC TF. I got a response on 9th November. In my request, I explained that I've made similar work in other RIRs (in that case via policy proposals, still under discussion), and I was during around 12 years the Sergeant-at-arms of the IETF (RFC3005), so clearly, I've some experience on this work. In the response I was told that the Chairs Team decided about the membership and the CoC TF is not "empowered" to expand its own membership. So, in summary, we can't enforce a CoC that has been generated in a non-inclusive and in fact discriminatory way. There was not any information, when the Task Force was created about "rules of participation", "timing" or anything similar, and of course, there is NOTHING in our existing rules, documents, etc., that provides chair or Task Force members the right to EXCLUDE and DISCRIMINATE anyone. I've asked several times to the CoC TF and the chairs about that, and the response, as it has been in other topics such as the violation of the PDP has been "silence". In Spanish we call this a "theater" or "mummery", I'm not sure if that expression makes sense in English. We continuously talk about openness, transparency and so on, but in reality, we have the chairs that do whatever they want, without respecting rules (or actually, creating their own rules) and ignoring volunteer participants. This is the way we want to encourage participation for long-term participants? How come newcomers will trust that. Let's be serious. So, is this about getting only "friends" in a TF? How come we can pretend to be inclusive? I don't know in other countries, but in Spain, if you exclude someone from a group or "club", without a clear previous explanation and engagement rules, which of course, can't be against law, it is called a discrimination, and it is an illegal act. Besides that, which clearly should have a public and a clear explanation provided (documents that authorize to exclude volunteers from a TF, documents that allow chairs to ignore and don't publish policy proposals, etc.), I've the following points. 0) Generic. I think every section/sub-section must be numbered, it helps to follow the document, provide inputs, etc. 1) Rationale. I think it must be made explicit not only inclusivity, but also a right balance with freedom of expression, openness, transparency and respect to each participant language barriers and cultural differences. 2) Scope. The mailing list have the "forums" as an alternative way to participate. I will not call that a messaging or chat. Maybe you should add a bullet to cover any "communication app or web service". That will cover, I think any way to communicate. Maybe with that wording is no longer necessary to use "messaging or chat" but it is still helpful spell it out. 3) Scope. I don't understand why the PC needs to be consulted. Anything related to the RIPE community must support the same CoC. Otherwise, we need to define an AUP for the mailings list CoC for "a", CoC for "b", etc. If the goal is to be generic for anything related to the community, this doesn't make sense to me. 4) People. When you say "contracted workers", is that including "subcontractors" or need to be spelled out? 5) CoC and National Law. "The CoC Team or RIPE NCC staff may relay the report or make their own if necessary" I don't think this is a matter for the CoC Team, instead the CoC Team must report those cases to the RIPE NCC staff, and the RIPE NCC, must report to authorities. Otherwise, if the NCC has knowledge of a possible illegal activity, is acting as against the law and acting as an abettor and it may have some liability. If an individual knowing about an illegal activity doesn't report it, it is his/her own problem, but in the case of an organization, it is a problem for all the involved "members", board, staff, etc. 6) Unacceptable. We are missing language discrimination. We can't allow that non-native speakers have difficulties to understand what is being discussed or said, because, we have seen that already in several occasions, "presumed jokes or jargon" are frequently used as attacks to non-native speakers. 7) Unacceptable. I don't think "calling people names" is clear for non-native speakers. Is that not include in "insulting"? If telling someone "fat" is within your understanding of "calling people names", it is the same as insulting. In my opinion, having a CoC that uses a non-inclusive language, it is a very bad sign of what we want to enforce ... Is not that bullying? I think it may be clearer to use "Insulting or bullying someone in anyway", instead of "insulting someone" and then you don't need the "calling people names". Note that my comment here may be wrong because I'm not even sure myself about what it means "calling people names". 8) Unacceptable. "Deliberately outing private details about someone without their consent" I will suggest replacing with "Deliberately outing personal data about someone without their consent" I think it is including "more" aspects. Again, this may be my English understanding from how I will say that in Spanish. 9) Unacceptable. "Pushing someone to drink or take drugs". I understand that it is a way to make it explicit, but pushing someone to smoke or eat something that he/she doesn't likes/wants, is the same. Maybe a more generic sentence such as "Pushing someone to do any action that he/she doesn't want". 10) I'm missing a few things which I believe are extremely important and should be made explicit: a) Spam, non-solicited information, collecting emails from participant. b) Using language or expression that non-native may not understand. c) On the other way around, the CoC Team should consider cultural and language differences, otherwise they may miss-interpret something that I'm saying following my native language or common cultural ways and apply wrongly the CoC. 11) I'm also missing something that I believe is key to have included in the same document. What actions can be taken in case of CoC violation. Can those be progressive? For example, if you send an unsolicited email to a list, or interrupt someone presentation, a first-time warning should be sufficient, but if you insist, in the case of a mailing list or similar "communication mean", you may restrict posting rights or moderate for a certain number of weeks and if it comes back, progressively increase the restriction period. In a meeting, or videoconference, you just ask him/her to abandon that session or the full meeting? In fact, as more I think about that, I believe that the reporting procedures, CoC Team and actions against the violation of the CoC should be in the same document. If not, every section and especially unacceptable behaviors should be numbered, because I don't think all the actions may have the same level of "severity". Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 18/3/21 18:22, "ripe-list en nombre de Leo Vegoda" <ripe-list-bounces@ripe.net en nombre de leo@vegoda.org> escribió: Dear RIPE community, There has been relatively little feedback on ths draft Code of Conduct so far. We would be grateful if you could share any comments on the RIPE Discussion List by Friday, 2 April 2021. We welcome suggested changes, but if you don’t see problems with the draft then statements of support are also helpful. The RIPE Chair Team will evaluate your comments and determine whether there is consensus on this draft or additional work is needed. Many thanks, Leo Vegoda On behalf of the RIPE Code of Conduct TF On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 5:02 AM Leo Vegoda <leo@vegoda.org> wrote: > > Dear RIPE community, > > An updated draft RIPE Code of Conduct (CoC) is now published for your > review. As this is intended to cover all participation within RIPE, it > applies to interactions over the Internet, mailing lists, as well as > in-person at RIPE Meetings. > > You can find the document here: > > https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-documents/other-documents/ripe-c... > > This draft keeps most of the text in v3.0[1], which was developed by > the RIPE Diversity TF. It also draws from CoCs that are in use in > other communities, including the Python CoC[2]. The biggest change is > that the updated draft covers scope and behaviour only. It doesn’t > touch on process or the CoC Team – these aspects will be addressed in > two separate documents that are still to come. > > Please review the draft and share any comments on the RIPE Discussion > List by Friday, 2 April 2021. We welcome suggested changes, but if you > don’t see problems with the draft then statements of support are also > helpful. The RIPE Chair Team will evaluate your comments and determine > whether there is consensus on this draft or additional work is needed. > > While we would prefer comments to be shared on the RIPE Discussion > List, we recognise that some people might have feedback that they > would like to share in private. If you want to provide feedback in > private you can contact members of the CoC TF or the RIPE Chair Team > directly. > > Some key changes in this version: > > - The goal of “a neutral, transparent and open framework for report > handling” has been removed and will be covered in the upcoming > document that describes process. > - The scope is defined as “all participation in RIPE.” > - Groups and events with separate governance from RIPE may adopt this > CoC but will need to manage their own implementation. > - A new section covers how the CoC relates to national law. > - A new section lists desired behaviours along with an updated list of > unacceptable behaviours. - Both lists are arranged alphabetically, to > avoid suggesting a hierarchy. > > We look forward to reading your thoughts on the current draft. > > Kind regards, > > Leo Vegoda > On behalf of the RIPE Code of Conduct TF > > [1] RIPE Meeting Code of Conduct 3.0 - Draft > https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/ripe-meetings/ripe-meeting-code-of... > [2] Python Community Code of Conduct https://www.python.org/psf/conduct/ ********************************************** 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.
Dear RIPE Community, I'd like to thank everyone who has already commented on this draft update to the Code of Conduct so far. I have been keeping track of the comments so the TF has a good idea of what changes we need to make to the draft. I've tabulated them below and it would be good if people could let me know if I have misunderstood what they meant. Also, some people have commented but not stated if they support the daft as is, or would support the draft with a minor change. I've placed a question mark next to names where I'm not sure what a person's position is. It would be great if you could clarify your position. Many thanks, Leo Vegoda On behalf of the RIPE Code of Conduct TF Commenter Support Comment or Delta Eileen Gallagher ✓ Add: acknowledgments of earlier work done by others when presenting new work Add: thanking people for their contribution as an example of positive behaviour Comment: RIPE NCC might want to incorporate the CoC into contracts with venues Randy Bush ✓ Keep the CoC tight Vesna Manojlovic ✓ Add: definition of the CoC Team Add: call to action Nit: Add date and authors Nit: Change “for more than quarter of a century” to “since 1989” Nit: make the URL ripe.net/coc Nit: Rename "Behaviour" title to "Inclusive Behaviour" or another alternative Nit: "people protected" -> remove bullet points, make it a CSV line of text Gert Doering ✓ — Maximilian Wilhelm ✓ — Daniel Karrenberg ✓ Focus more on principles and make it even clearer that the lists are examples and not comprehensive Do not give the PC a special role Nit: Change “national laws” to “laws” Nit: ONly talk about roles and organisations in the community in general terms Stated that the obligation to report crimes is very limited JORDI PALET MARTINEZ ? Nit: Number all sections Rationale must balance inclusivity against freedom of speech and cultural differences Include all ways of communicating over the Internet Does not understand why the PC needs to be consulted Does contracted workers include subcontractors? Wants the RIPE NCC staff to always intermediate if a report is made to the police and understands that there could be liability if people know of an incident and do not report it Add protection for those who do not speak English as a first language Does not think "calling people names" is clear for non-native speakers Rephrase “Deliberately outing private details about someone without their consent” Rephrase “Pushing someone to drink or take drugs” Add a prohibition against spam Forbid using language a non-native speaker might misunderstand Similarly, the CoC Team should accommodate cultural differences Wants the process in the same document Sasha Romijn ? Question about how the team would determine if an act should be reported to the police and a preference for that to be controlled by the subject of the act Jim Reid ? Supports Sasha on police report issue Sander Steffann ? Supports Sasha on police report issue Gergana Petrova ? Clarification on making a police report Echoes the question about the role of the PC (see above) Rob Evans ? Trusted Contacts training gave him the understanding that there is no obligation to make police reports. Trusted Contacts are confidential contacts Fearghas Mckay ? Confidentiality and control are important in helping people have the confidence to make a report
Hi Leo, Apologies for not being clear. I support the draft as is with the change of removing the PC role. You can put me as a ✓ in the table. Cheers, Gergana On 29/03/2021 10:30, Leo Vegoda wrote:
Dear RIPE Community,
I'd like to thank everyone who has already commented on this draft update to the Code of Conduct so far.
I have been keeping track of the comments so the TF has a good idea of what changes we need to make to the draft. I've tabulated them below and it would be good if people could let me know if I have misunderstood what they meant. Also, some people have commented but not stated if they support the daft as is, or would support the draft with a minor change. I've placed a question mark next to names where I'm not sure what a person's position is. It would be great if you could clarify your position.
Many thanks,
Leo Vegoda On behalf of the RIPE Code of Conduct TF
Commenter
Support
Comment or Delta
Eileen Gallagher
✓
Add: acknowledgments of earlier work done by others when presenting new work
Add: thanking people for their contribution as an example of positive behaviour
Comment: RIPE NCC might want to incorporate the CoC into contracts with venues
Randy Bush
✓
Keep the CoC tight
Vesna Manojlovic
✓
Add: definition of the CoC Team
Add: call to action
Nit: Add date and authors
Nit: Change “for more than quarter of a century” to “since 1989”
Nit: make the URL ripe.net/coc <http://ripe.net/coc>
Nit: Rename "Behaviour" title to "Inclusive Behaviour" or another alternative
Nit: "people protected" -> remove bullet points, make it a CSV line of text
Gert Doering
✓
—
Maximilian Wilhelm
✓
—
Daniel Karrenberg
✓
Focus more on principles and make it even clearer that the lists are examples and not comprehensive
Do not give the PC a special role
Nit: Change “national laws” to “laws”
Nit: ONly talk about roles and organisations in the community in general terms
Stated that the obligation to report crimes is very limited
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
?
Nit: Number all sections
Rationale must balance inclusivity against freedom of speech and cultural differences
Include all ways of communicating over the Internet
Does not understand why the PC needs to be consulted
Does contracted workers include subcontractors?
Wants the RIPE NCC staff to always intermediate if a report is made to the police and understands that there could be liability if people know of an incident and do not report it
Add protection for those who do not speak English as a first language
Does not think "calling people names" is clear for non-native speakers
Rephrase “Deliberately outing private details about someone without their consent”
Rephrase “Pushing someone to drink or take drugs”
Add a prohibition against spam
Forbid using language a non-native speaker might misunderstand
Similarly, the CoC Team should accommodate cultural differences
Wants the process in the same document
Sasha Romijn
?
Question about how the team would determine if an act should be reported to the police and a preference for that to be controlled by the subject of the act
Jim Reid
?
Supports Sasha on police report issue
Sander Steffann
?
Supports Sasha on police report issue
Gergana Petrova
?
Clarification on making a police report
Echoes the question about the role of the PC (see above)
Rob Evans
?
Trusted Contacts training gave him the understanding that there is no obligation to make police reports. Trusted Contacts are confidential contacts
Fearghas Mckay
?
Confidentiality and control are important in helping people have the confidence to make a report
_______________________________________________ diversity mailing list diversity@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/diversity
Hi Leo, all, I can’t support the document at this stage, because the points I mention. Possibly they can be accommodated and then I will be happy to support. To state it clearly: Note that my disagreement with the discrimination at the participation of the TF is no a blocking to my support position. On this regards I’m still unable to find the discussion of that participation in the minutes/mail archive, so that needs to be clarified. I will try to re-read all the mail archive today, not just because this, but also in case any of my objections is related to the TF discussions and I could have a different perspective or point to something else. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 29/3/21 10:32, "ripe-list en nombre de Leo Vegoda" <ripe-list-bounces@ripe.net en nombre de leo@vegoda.org> escribió: Dear RIPE Community, I'd like to thank everyone who has already commented on this draft update to the Code of Conduct so far. I have been keeping track of the comments so the TF has a good idea of what changes we need to make to the draft. I've tabulated them below and it would be good if people could let me know if I have misunderstood what they meant. Also, some people have commented but not stated if they support the daft as is, or would support the draft with a minor change. I've placed a question mark next to names where I'm not sure what a person's position is. It would be great if you could clarify your position. Many thanks, Leo Vegoda On behalf of the RIPE Code of Conduct TF CommenterSupportComment or Delta Eileen Gallagher✓Add: acknowledgments of earlier work done by others when presenting new workAdd: thanking people for their contribution as an example of positive behaviourComment: RIPE NCC might want to incorporate the CoC into contracts with venues Randy Bush✓Keep the CoC tight Vesna Manojlovic✓Add: definition of the CoC TeamAdd: call to actionNit: Add date and authorsNit: Change “for more than quarter of a century” to “since 1989”Nit: make the URL ripe.net/cocNit: Rename "Behaviour" title to "Inclusive Behaviour" or another alternativeNit: "people protected" -> remove bullet points, make it a CSV line of text Gert Doering✓— Maximilian Wilhelm✓— Daniel Karrenberg✓Focus more on principles and make it even clearer that the lists are examples and not comprehensiveDo not give the PC a special role Nit: Change “national laws” to “laws”Nit: ONly talk about roles and organisations in the community in general termsStated that the obligation to report crimes is very limited JORDI PALET MARTINEZ?Nit: Number all sectionsRationale must balance inclusivity against freedom of speech and cultural differencesInclude all ways of communicating over the InternetDoes not understand why the PC needs to be consultedDoes contracted workers include subcontractors?Wants the RIPE NCC staff to always intermediate if a report is made to the police and understands that there could be liability if people know of an incident and do not report itAdd protection for those who do not speak English as a first languageDoes not think "calling people names" is clear for non-native speakersRephrase “Deliberately outing private details about someone without their consent”Rephrase “Pushing someone to drink or take drugs”Add a prohibition against spamForbid using language a non-native speaker might misunderstandSimilarly, the CoC Team should accommodate cultural differencesWants the process in the same document Sasha Romijn?Question about how the team would determine if an act should be reported to the police and a preference for that to be controlled by the subject of the act Jim Reid?Supports Sasha on police report issue Sander Steffann?Supports Sasha on police report issue Gergana Petrova?Clarification on making a police reportEchoes the question about the role of the PC (see above) Rob Evans?Trusted Contacts training gave him the understanding that there is no obligation to make police reports. Trusted Contacts are confidential contacts Fearghas Mckay?Confidentiality and control are important in helping people have the confidence to make a report ********************************************** 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.
On 29 Mar 2021, at 10:30, Leo Vegoda wrote:
… I have been keeping track of the comments so the TF has a good idea of what changes we need to make to the draft. I've tabulated them below and it would be good if people could let me know if I have misunderstood what they meant. …
This is an excellent way of making progress. I’ll emulate it in the future. Well done! You have understood me correctly. I support the suggestions of Eileen, Randy, Vesna, Sasha and Fearghas. In particular I support Vesna’s suggestion that you paraphrased as “call to action”. Daniel
Leo et al
On 29 Mar 2021, at 04:30, Leo Vegoda <leo@vegoda.org> wrote:
Also, some people have commented but not stated if they support the daft as is, or would support the draft with a minor change. I've placed a question mark next to names where I'm not sure what a person's position is. It would be great if you could clarify your position.
I support the CoC in principle with the clarification that the complainer has to control any moves to expand the process, either internally or externally. Moving it to a guide to what you can and should do from "what you must not do" is a positive move. Explain the benefits of being a good citizen of our community. f
Hello Leo, I’m fine with the current draft if the comment I made is addressed (and depending on how comments from others are integrated). “Support” feels like a big word, because this document is functionally incomplete without the other documents. I know that splitting into parts is the process that has been decided on, so that’s not something we can easily change now. Sasha
On 29 Mar 2021, at 10:30, Leo Vegoda <leo@vegoda.org> wrote:
Dear RIPE Community,
I'd like to thank everyone who has already commented on this draft update to the Code of Conduct so far.
I have been keeping track of the comments so the TF has a good idea of what changes we need to make to the draft. I've tabulated them below and it would be good if people could let me know if I have misunderstood what they meant. Also, some people have commented but not stated if they support the daft as is, or would support the draft with a minor change. I've placed a question mark next to names where I'm not sure what a person's position is. It would be great if you could clarify your position.
Many thanks,
Leo Vegoda On behalf of the RIPE Code of Conduct TF
Commenter Support Comment or Delta Eileen Gallagher ✓ Add: acknowledgments of earlier work done by others when presenting new work Add: thanking people for their contribution as an example of positive behaviour Comment: RIPE NCC might want to incorporate the CoC into contracts with venues Randy Bush ✓ Keep the CoC tight Vesna Manojlovic ✓ Add: definition of the CoC Team Add: call to action Nit: Add date and authors Nit: Change “for more than quarter of a century” to “since 1989” Nit: make the URL ripe.net/coc <http://ripe.net/coc> Nit: Rename "Behaviour" title to "Inclusive Behaviour" or another alternative Nit: "people protected" -> remove bullet points, make it a CSV line of text Gert Doering ✓ — Maximilian Wilhelm ✓ — Daniel Karrenberg ✓ Focus more on principles and make it even clearer that the lists are examples and not comprehensive Do not give the PC a special role Nit: Change “national laws” to “laws” Nit: ONly talk about roles and organisations in the community in general terms Stated that the obligation to report crimes is very limited JORDI PALET MARTINEZ ? Nit: Number all sections Rationale must balance inclusivity against freedom of speech and cultural differences Include all ways of communicating over the Internet Does not understand why the PC needs to be consulted Does contracted workers include subcontractors? Wants the RIPE NCC staff to always intermediate if a report is made to the police and understands that there could be liability if people know of an incident and do not report it Add protection for those who do not speak English as a first language Does not think "calling people names" is clear for non-native speakers Rephrase “Deliberately outing private details about someone without their consent” Rephrase “Pushing someone to drink or take drugs” Add a prohibition against spam Forbid using language a non-native speaker might misunderstand Similarly, the CoC Team should accommodate cultural differences Wants the process in the same document Sasha Romijn ? Question about how the team would determine if an act should be reported to the police and a preference for that to be controlled by the subject of the act Jim Reid ? Supports Sasha on police report issue Sander Steffann ? Supports Sasha on police report issue Gergana Petrova ? Clarification on making a police report Echoes the question about the role of the PC (see above) Rob Evans ? Trusted Contacts training gave him the understanding that there is no obligation to make police reports. Trusted Contacts are confidential contacts Fearghas Mckay ? Confidentiality and control are important in helping people have the confidence to make a report
_______________________________________________ diversity mailing list diversity@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/diversity
Very good point. I don’t agree with the “split”, I think it increases complexity instead of simplifying it, as I already mention, however if this is made in order to facilitate the work, etc., I will consent on that. That said, to be acceptable, I think we need to a couple of things: Number sections/sub-sections (to facilitate reading/inputs and so we can make cross-references, if needed across documents). Reach consensus in the documents as a “set”, not one by one, because I feel that some of the discussions, wording, etc., in one document can have important impact in the others. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 30/3/21 11:29, "diversity en nombre de Sasha Romijn" <diversity-bounces@ripe.net en nombre de sasha@mxsasha.eu> escribió: Hello Leo, I’m fine with the current draft if the comment I made is addressed (and depending on how comments from others are integrated). “Support” feels like a big word, because this document is functionally incomplete without the other documents. I know that splitting into parts is the process that has been decided on, so that’s not something we can easily change now. Sasha On 29 Mar 2021, at 10:30, Leo Vegoda <leo@vegoda.org> wrote: Dear RIPE Community, I'd like to thank everyone who has already commented on this draft update to the Code of Conduct so far. I have been keeping track of the comments so the TF has a good idea of what changes we need to make to the draft. I've tabulated them below and it would be good if people could let me know if I have misunderstood what they meant. Also, some people have commented but not stated if they support the daft as is, or would support the draft with a minor change. I've placed a question mark next to names where I'm not sure what a person's position is. It would be great if you could clarify your position. Many thanks, Leo Vegoda On behalf of the RIPE Code of Conduct TF Commenter SupportComment or Delta Eileen Gallagher ✓Add: acknowledgments of earlier work done by others when presenting new work Add: thanking people for their contribution as an example of positive behaviour Comment: RIPE NCC might want to incorporate the CoC into contracts with venues Randy Bush ✓Keep the CoC tight Vesna Manojlovic ✓Add: definition of the CoC Team Add: call to action Nit: Add date and authors Nit: Change “for more than quarter of a century” to “since 1989” Nit: make the URL ripe.net/coc Nit: Rename "Behaviour" title to "Inclusive Behaviour" or another alternative Nit: "people protected" -> remove bullet points, make it a CSV line of text Gert Doering ✓— Maximilian Wilhelm ✓— Daniel Karrenberg ✓Focus more on principles and make it even clearer that the lists are examples and not comprehensive Do not give the PC a special role Nit: Change “national laws” to “laws” Nit: ONly talk about roles and organisations in the community in general terms Stated that the obligation to report crimes is very limited JORDI PALET MARTINEZ ?Nit: Number all sections Rationale must balance inclusivity against freedom of speech and cultural differences Include all ways of communicating over the Internet Does not understand why the PC needs to be consulted Does contracted workers include subcontractors? Wants the RIPE NCC staff to always intermediate if a report is made to the police and understands that there could be liability if people know of an incident and do not report it Add protection for those who do not speak English as a first language Does not think "calling people names" is clear for non-native speakers Rephrase “Deliberately outing private details about someone without their consent” Rephrase “Pushing someone to drink or take drugs” Add a prohibition against spam Forbid using language a non-native speaker might misunderstand Similarly, the CoC Team should accommodate cultural differences Wants the process in the same document Sasha Romijn ?Question about how the team would determine if an act should be reported to the police and a preference for that to be controlled by the subject of the act Jim Reid ?Supports Sasha on police report issue Sander Steffann ?Supports Sasha on police report issue Gergana Petrova ?Clarification on making a police report Echoes the question about the role of the PC (see above) Rob Evans ?Trusted Contacts training gave him the understanding that there is no obligation to make police reports. Trusted Contacts are confidential contacts Fearghas Mckay ?Confidentiality and control are important in helping people have the confidence to make a report _______________________________________________ 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 ********************************************** 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.
Hi Leo & TF members, I’ve been reading up on the CoC and the status of it as of today. In the document, there is no mention of unwanted behaviour / attention that could be classified as stalking. Under the section: aggressive communication, there are several examples of what would be seen as inappropriate behaviour.. However, “classic” stalking (online or in person) is something that I miss here. Please take this feedback into account before the final version is published. Regards, Erik Bais From: ripe-list <ripe-list-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of Leo Vegoda <leo@vegoda.org> Date: Monday 29 March 2021 at 10:32 To: "ripe-list@ripe.net" <ripe-list@ripe.net> Cc: "diversity@ripe.net" <diversity@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [ripe-list] Updated Draft RIPE Code of Conduct Published for Community Review Dear RIPE Community, I'd like to thank everyone who has already commented on this draft update to the Code of Conduct so far. I have been keeping track of the comments so the TF has a good idea of what changes we need to make to the draft. I've tabulated them below and it would be good if people could let me know if I have misunderstood what they meant. Also, some people have commented but not stated if they support the daft as is, or would support the draft with a minor change. I've placed a question mark next to names where I'm not sure what a person's position is. It would be great if you could clarify your position. Many thanks, Leo Vegoda On behalf of the RIPE Code of Conduct TF Commenter Support Comment or Delta Eileen Gallagher ✓ Add: acknowledgments of earlier work done by others when presenting new work Add: thanking people for their contribution as an example of positive behaviour Comment: RIPE NCC might want to incorporate the CoC into contracts with venues Randy Bush ✓ Keep the CoC tight Vesna Manojlovic ✓ Add: definition of the CoC Team Add: call to action Nit: Add date and authors Nit: Change “for more than quarter of a century” to “since 1989” Nit: make the URL ripe.net/coc<http://ripe.net/coc> Nit: Rename "Behaviour" title to "Inclusive Behaviour" or another alternative Nit: "people protected" -> remove bullet points, make it a CSV line of text Gert Doering ✓ — Maximilian Wilhelm ✓ — Daniel Karrenberg ✓ Focus more on principles and make it even clearer that the lists are examples and not comprehensive Do not give the PC a special role Nit: Change “national laws” to “laws” Nit: ONly talk about roles and organisations in the community in general terms Stated that the obligation to report crimes is very limited JORDI PALET MARTINEZ ? Nit: Number all sections Rationale must balance inclusivity against freedom of speech and cultural differences Include all ways of communicating over the Internet Does not understand why the PC needs to be consulted Does contracted workers include subcontractors? Wants the RIPE NCC staff to always intermediate if a report is made to the police and understands that there could be liability if people know of an incident and do not report it Add protection for those who do not speak English as a first language Does not think "calling people names" is clear for non-native speakers Rephrase “Deliberately outing private details about someone without their consent” Rephrase “Pushing someone to drink or take drugs” Add a prohibition against spam Forbid using language a non-native speaker might misunderstand Similarly, the CoC Team should accommodate cultural differences Wants the process in the same document Sasha Romijn ? Question about how the team would determine if an act should be reported to the police and a preference for that to be controlled by the subject of the act Jim Reid ? Supports Sasha on police report issue Sander Steffann ? Supports Sasha on police report issue Gergana Petrova ? Clarification on making a police report Echoes the question about the role of the PC (see above) Rob Evans ? Trusted Contacts training gave him the understanding that there is no obligation to make police reports. Trusted Contacts are confidential contacts Fearghas Mckay ? Confidentiality and control are important in helping people have the confidence to make a report
On 12 Apr 2021, at 14:16, Erik Bais <ebais@a2b-internet.com> wrote:
In the document, there is no mention of unwanted behaviour / attention that could be classified as stalking.
IMO, that’s not a bug. It’s a feature. The CoC should just talk about inappropriate behaviour as a general concept and not attempt to enumerate every possible type of inappropriate behaviour. That way lies madness... The current draft has an illustrative (non-definitive) list of unacceptable behaviour and that should be good enough. BTW, the CoC should say “behaviour” not “behaviours”. According to the grammar police, behaviour is a mass noun -- like traffic, health, fairness, nonsense, etc -- and therefore doesn’t get pluralised.
Dear Leo and RIPE Code of Conduct TF, Thank you for writing the RIPE Code of Conduct draft. We think it is concise and very clear. We have some suggestions for textual changes for the TF's consideration. We understand that "wordsmithing" can be a pitfall for progressing a document, so please consider our email as a sign of support for the document and the suggestions as improvements. Two points we mention have already been addressed by Gergana and Sasha, see the comments below. Section Introduction: Suggestion: “diversity of views” --> “diversity in views and people” to appreciate the diversity in attendees. Section Rationale: “To help everyone feel safe and included” --> “To make everyone feel safe and included” This may look subtle, but “help” suggests that people have some issue or problem they need to be assisted with, and makes it sound to me like the problem is with them. Changing this to “make” shifts the burden to the community rather than the individual. “...a CoC sets clear expectations in terms of how people should behave.” --> could be more active, e.g.: “...a CoC makes clear how we expect people to conduct themselves.” or “...a CoC makes clear how we expect people to behave.” Section Scope: “Unofficial social events organised by RIPE Meeting attendees or their employers within the meeting venue” --> the “within the meeting venue” seems legalese to us in the sense that it could be said to be within the responsibility and bailiwick of RIPE. Given that a CoC is not a legal document, we would say something that is wider, e.g. “Unofficial social events organised by RIPE Meeting attendees or their employers within the context and spirit of the meeting” -- many side events are not in the meeting venue, but they clearly would not have happened had there not been a RIPE meeting. As already mentioned by Gergana in a previous email, why does the PC have the final say in whether the CoC is applied? The CoC should be carried by the community and should always apply, not ifs, no buts. “This CoC does not apply to events or interactions that are managed by other organisations or communities.” --> legalese, not needed, this is self evident, because the inclusive scope of the CoC is clearly defined at the start. Legalese does not belong in a CoC, it is not a contract. Section People and Organisations Bound and Protected by the Code: Making a list of people the CoC applies to is risky, since such a list can never be complete. Why have a list at all? Make it simpler: “This CoC equally applies to participants in the RIPE community, officers of the RIPE community and RIPE NCC staff members.” Section CoC and National Law: “The CoC Team or RIPE NCC staff may relay the report or make their own if necessary.” --> the last part “or make their own if necessary”, no matter how well-intended, incurs the risk of a serious breach of trust. This has also been argued by Sasha in an earlier email, and we fully endorse Sasha's wording in this regard. We realise this is a point that may lead to a lot of discussion, we would strongly advocate that anyone who acts in a role of trust w.r.t. this CoC be properly and regularly trained to deal with this kind of situation. Regards, Roland van Rijswijk-Deij Benno Overeinder On 18/03/2021 18:21, Leo Vegoda wrote:
Dear RIPE community,
There has been relatively little feedback on ths draft Code of Conduct so far. We would be grateful if you could share any comments on the RIPE Discussion List by Friday, 2 April 2021. We welcome suggested changes, but if you don’t see problems with the draft then statements of support are also helpful. The RIPE Chair Team will evaluate your comments and determine whether there is consensus on this draft or additional work is needed.
Many thanks,
Leo Vegoda On behalf of the RIPE Code of Conduct TF
On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 5:02 AM Leo Vegoda <leo@vegoda.org> wrote:
Dear RIPE community,
An updated draft RIPE Code of Conduct (CoC) is now published for your review. As this is intended to cover all participation within RIPE, it applies to interactions over the Internet, mailing lists, as well as in-person at RIPE Meetings.
You can find the document here:
https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-documents/other-documents/ripe-c...
This draft keeps most of the text in v3.0[1], which was developed by the RIPE Diversity TF. It also draws from CoCs that are in use in other communities, including the Python CoC[2]. The biggest change is that the updated draft covers scope and behaviour only. It doesn’t touch on process or the CoC Team – these aspects will be addressed in two separate documents that are still to come.
Please review the draft and share any comments on the RIPE Discussion List by Friday, 2 April 2021. We welcome suggested changes, but if you don’t see problems with the draft then statements of support are also helpful. The RIPE Chair Team will evaluate your comments and determine whether there is consensus on this draft or additional work is needed.
While we would prefer comments to be shared on the RIPE Discussion List, we recognise that some people might have feedback that they would like to share in private. If you want to provide feedback in private you can contact members of the CoC TF or the RIPE Chair Team directly.
Some key changes in this version:
- The goal of “a neutral, transparent and open framework for report handling” has been removed and will be covered in the upcoming document that describes process. - The scope is defined as “all participation in RIPE.” - Groups and events with separate governance from RIPE may adopt this CoC but will need to manage their own implementation. - A new section covers how the CoC relates to national law. - A new section lists desired behaviours along with an updated list of unacceptable behaviours. - Both lists are arranged alphabetically, to avoid suggesting a hierarchy.
We look forward to reading your thoughts on the current draft.
Kind regards,
Leo Vegoda On behalf of the RIPE Code of Conduct TF
[1] RIPE Meeting Code of Conduct 3.0 - Draft https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/ripe-meetings/ripe-meeting-code-of... [2] Python Community Code of Conduct https://www.python.org/psf/conduct/
-- Benno J. Overeinder NLnet Labs https://www.nlnetlabs.nl/
Hi, TL;DR I am okay with it as is but it could certainly be better in some places. And my stance may change depending on if it gets changed by feedback from others. I agree with much of what has been brought up by Benno, Sasha, and others. But I would really like to emphasize that the part about that the CoC should always be applied and the PC (or anyone else including the RIPE Chair) should not have a say in if it should be applied or not. -Cynthia On Fri, Apr 2, 2021 at 2:06 PM Benno Overeinder <benno@nlnetlabs.nl> wrote:
Dear Leo and RIPE Code of Conduct TF,
Thank you for writing the RIPE Code of Conduct draft. We think it is concise and very clear. We have some suggestions for textual changes for the TF's consideration.
We understand that "wordsmithing" can be a pitfall for progressing a document, so please consider our email as a sign of support for the document and the suggestions as improvements. Two points we mention have already been addressed by Gergana and Sasha, see the comments below.
Section Introduction:
Suggestion: “diversity of views” --> “diversity in views and people” to appreciate the diversity in attendees.
Section Rationale:
“To help everyone feel safe and included” --> “To make everyone feel safe and included” This may look subtle, but “help” suggests that people have some issue or problem they need to be assisted with, and makes it sound to me like the problem is with them. Changing this to “make” shifts the burden to the community rather than the individual.
“...a CoC sets clear expectations in terms of how people should behave.” --> could be more active, e.g.: “...a CoC makes clear how we expect people to conduct themselves.” or “...a CoC makes clear how we expect people to behave.”
Section Scope:
“Unofficial social events organised by RIPE Meeting attendees or their employers within the meeting venue” --> the “within the meeting venue” seems legalese to us in the sense that it could be said to be within the responsibility and bailiwick of RIPE. Given that a CoC is not a legal document, we would say something that is wider, e.g. “Unofficial social events organised by RIPE Meeting attendees or their employers within the context and spirit of the meeting” -- many side events are not in the meeting venue, but they clearly would not have happened had there not been a RIPE meeting.
As already mentioned by Gergana in a previous email, why does the PC have the final say in whether the CoC is applied? The CoC should be carried by the community and should always apply, not ifs, no buts.
“This CoC does not apply to events or interactions that are managed by other organisations or communities.” --> legalese, not needed, this is self evident, because the inclusive scope of the CoC is clearly defined at the start. Legalese does not belong in a CoC, it is not a contract.
Section People and Organisations Bound and Protected by the Code:
Making a list of people the CoC applies to is risky, since such a list can never be complete. Why have a list at all? Make it simpler: “This CoC equally applies to participants in the RIPE community, officers of the RIPE community and RIPE NCC staff members.”
Section CoC and National Law:
“The CoC Team or RIPE NCC staff may relay the report or make their own if necessary.” --> the last part “or make their own if necessary”, no matter how well-intended, incurs the risk of a serious breach of trust. This has also been argued by Sasha in an earlier email, and we fully endorse Sasha's wording in this regard.
We realise this is a point that may lead to a lot of discussion, we would strongly advocate that anyone who acts in a role of trust w.r.t. this CoC be properly and regularly trained to deal with this kind of situation.
Regards,
Roland van Rijswijk-Deij Benno Overeinder
On 18/03/2021 18:21, Leo Vegoda wrote:
Dear RIPE community,
There has been relatively little feedback on ths draft Code of Conduct so far. We would be grateful if you could share any comments on the RIPE Discussion List by Friday, 2 April 2021. We welcome suggested changes, but if you don’t see problems with the draft then statements of support are also helpful. The RIPE Chair Team will evaluate your comments and determine whether there is consensus on this draft or additional work is needed.
Many thanks,
Leo Vegoda On behalf of the RIPE Code of Conduct TF
On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 5:02 AM Leo Vegoda <leo@vegoda.org> wrote:
Dear RIPE community,
An updated draft RIPE Code of Conduct (CoC) is now published for your review. As this is intended to cover all participation within RIPE, it applies to interactions over the Internet, mailing lists, as well as in-person at RIPE Meetings.
You can find the document here:
https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-documents/other-documents/ripe-c...
This draft keeps most of the text in v3.0[1], which was developed by the RIPE Diversity TF. It also draws from CoCs that are in use in other communities, including the Python CoC[2]. The biggest change is that the updated draft covers scope and behaviour only. It doesn’t touch on process or the CoC Team – these aspects will be addressed in two separate documents that are still to come.
Please review the draft and share any comments on the RIPE Discussion List by Friday, 2 April 2021. We welcome suggested changes, but if you don’t see problems with the draft then statements of support are also helpful. The RIPE Chair Team will evaluate your comments and determine whether there is consensus on this draft or additional work is needed.
While we would prefer comments to be shared on the RIPE Discussion List, we recognise that some people might have feedback that they would like to share in private. If you want to provide feedback in private you can contact members of the CoC TF or the RIPE Chair Team directly.
Some key changes in this version:
- The goal of “a neutral, transparent and open framework for report handling” has been removed and will be covered in the upcoming document that describes process. - The scope is defined as “all participation in RIPE.” - Groups and events with separate governance from RIPE may adopt this CoC but will need to manage their own implementation. - A new section covers how the CoC relates to national law. - A new section lists desired behaviours along with an updated list of unacceptable behaviours. - Both lists are arranged alphabetically, to avoid suggesting a hierarchy.
We look forward to reading your thoughts on the current draft.
Kind regards,
Leo Vegoda On behalf of the RIPE Code of Conduct TF
[1] RIPE Meeting Code of Conduct 3.0 - Draft https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/ripe-meetings/ripe-meeting-code-of... [2] Python Community Code of Conduct https://www.python.org/psf/conduct/
-- Benno J. Overeinder NLnet Labs https://www.nlnetlabs.nl/
_______________________________________________ diversity mailing list diversity@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/diversity
Dear friends, On 2 Apr 2021, at 13:06, Benno Overeinder wrote:
As already mentioned by Gergana in a previous email, why does the PC have the final say in whether the CoC is applied? The CoC should be carried by the community and should always apply, not ifs, no buts.
This was the most recent of a number of comments, including also ones from Gergana (https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ripe-list/2021-March/002141.html) and Daniel (https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ripe-list/2021-March/002135.html), all expressing concern about the following passage in the latest draft RIPE Code of Conduct (v4):
If an event organised by the RIPE NCC has a Programme Committee (PC), the RIPE NCC will consult with that PC before applying the CoC. The relevant PC will have the final say on whether it wishes to implement the CoC within its community and how this is done.
The intent here was not at all to give the RIPE PC any special position, but rather to respect the autonomy of other communities, distinct from RIPE, for which the RIPE NCC organizes events (such as ENOG, MENOG, SEE), and to require the RIPE NCC to ascertain from that community whether they have adopted the RIPE Code before presuming to impose this. Perhaps the following text would suit:
The RIPE NCC regularly organizes events for communities which are distinct from RIPE. When preparing for such an event, the RIPE NCC will ascertain whether the respective community has adopted the RIPE Code of Conduct and, if not, also ascertain which Code must be applied.
I hope this doesn’t add to the concern and confusion. Best regards, Niall O’Reilly
The RIPE NCC regularly organizes events for communities which are distinct from RIPE. When preparing for such an event, the RIPE NCC will ascertain whether the respective community has adopted the RIPE Code of Conduct and, if not, also ascertain which Code must be applied.
my naïve view is that, if the ncc is an organiser, then the coc MUST apply. if i am asked to be on (or chair) a panel which has no under-represented folk, i decline, making the reason very clear. randy
Hi Hank, I agree with those points, we had similar discussions in other RIRs. Not being a lawyer, I believe that instead of “copyright”, we should use “intellectual property”, as copyright is one form of presenting that. Regarding the law violation. It is not clear how that should be formulated, because, it is impossible that everyone knows the law of Netherlands and it may be even in simple things very different from your own country. In fact, if that happens, it will be a legal issue, which is always on top of any code of conduct that we want to set. I understand that most of the CoC aspects, could be considered against law in many countries, and we want to make them “explicit”. However, for that specific point I’ve “confronted sentiments”. In my opinion, if something violating law is posted which is not clearly described in all the other points of the CoC, it is up to the Dutch LEA/courts to decide and it is up to RIPE NCC to inform them about “their feeling that it may be the case”. Let me go a bit further: This is also relevant to the email archives. They should reflect all what happens in the list, like a meeting recording, minutes, etc., uncensored. Deleting from email archives something that could be a law violation should be only done if the law ask for it. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 20/4/21 7:30, "ripe-list en nombre de Hank Nussbacher" <ripe-list-bounces@ripe.net en nombre de hank@efes.iucc.ac.il> escribió: On 19/04/2021 20:12, Randy Bush wrote: The RIPE NCC regularly organizes events for communities which are distinct from RIPE. When preparing for such an event, the RIPE NCC will ascertain whether the respective community has adopted the RIPE Code of Conduct and, if not, also ascertain which Code must be applied. my naïve view is that, if the ncc is an organiser, then the coc MUST apply. if i am asked to be on (or chair) a panel which has no under-represented folk, i decline, making the reason very clear. randy Reviewing the CoC I have noticed a few items that maybe need to be included (not sure): - violating someones copyright or trademark - distributing malware with the intention of infecting participants - reposting private emails without the express permission of the sender - posting something that would violate the law in the Netherlands - posting commercial/advertisement content Probably each is open to debate. Regards, Hank Caveat: The views expressed above are solely my own and do not express the views or opinions of my employer ********************************************** 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.
Dear all, I don't think of the SEE, MENOG and ENOG communities as "distinct from RIPE", rather than sub-communities of RIPE. These communities don't have a separate Chair or Working Groups and their members participate in and are subject to the RIPE-community-developed policies, which is why to me they are an integral part of the RIPE community. Best regards, Gergana On 19/04/2021 19:12, Randy Bush wrote:
The RIPE NCC regularly organizes events for communities which are distinct from RIPE. When preparing for such an event, the RIPE NCC will ascertain whether the respective community has adopted the RIPE Code of Conduct and, if not, also ascertain which Code must be applied.
my naïve view is that, if the ncc is an organiser, then the coc MUST apply.
if i am asked to be on (or chair) a panel which has no under-represented folk, i decline, making the reason very clear.
randy
hi gergana, [ top posting reversed ]
my naïve view is that, if the ncc is an organiser, then the coc MUST apply.
if i am asked to be on (or chair) a panel which has no under-represented folk, i decline, making the reason very clear.
I don't think of the SEE, MENOG and ENOG communities as "distinct from RIPE", rather than sub-communities of RIPE.
i might phrase is as comminities *within* ripe; i.e. not subordinate to. but that is likely my over-sensitivity.
These communities don't have a separate Chair or Working Groups and their members participate in and are subject to the RIPE-community-developed policies, which is why to me they are an integral part of the RIPE community.
so are these communities then relevant? my point was intended more to the ripe community or the ncc providing meeting coordination with an external group, e.g. Euro IoT Regulatory Wannabes. imiho, the coc virus would be more beneficial than the gpl virus. :) you hang out with us, you behave civily. randy --- randy@psg.com `gpg --locate-external-keys --auto-key-locate wkd randy@psg.com` signatures are back, thanks to dmarc header butchery
Gergana, Randy, Let’s take a step back and reflect a little. Here is my contribution: In my reality RIPE and the RIPE NCC are *facilitating* meetings of local and regional communities. We have always been very careful to respect the autonomy of the local communities as well as their values and customs. On the other hand we have some responsibilities depending on exactly how we facilitate; for instance we are often the host of the meetings. This is a fine line to walk. As far as I can remember this started in Russia at a time when it was even more of an issue who actually *hosted* a meeting than it may be now. Back then we were able to make a difference by being a ‘neutral’ external party who could invite everyone. We should *offer* our codes, customs and material resources to *support* the local communities. We should never just assume they accept our codes as their own. They should have the option to adopt our codes or not as much as we have the option to walk away if we need to. We should not even think of this as being a hierarchy with RIPE at the top. Even with the best intentions this would be wrong. Daniel
Hi Daniel,
We should *offer* our codes, customs and material resources to *support* the local communities. We should never just assume they accept our codes as their own. They should have the option to adopt our codes or not as
Just as a data point: I reached out to the SEE, ENOG and MENOG lists last week to make them aware of the draft RIPE code of conduct and Leo's RIPE Labs article so the communities can consider adopting the code. Kind regards, Mirjam
Hi all, I should have made it clearer: I was responding to Niall's email. @Randy: 100% agree Cheers, Gergana On 21/04/2021 03:39, Randy Bush wrote:
hi gergana,
[ top posting reversed ]
my naïve view is that, if the ncc is an organiser, then the coc MUST apply.
if i am asked to be on (or chair) a panel which has no under-represented folk, i decline, making the reason very clear.
I don't think of the SEE, MENOG and ENOG communities as "distinct from RIPE", rather than sub-communities of RIPE.
i might phrase is as comminities *within* ripe; i.e. not subordinate to. but that is likely my over-sensitivity.
These communities don't have a separate Chair or Working Groups and their members participate in and are subject to the RIPE-community-developed policies, which is why to me they are an integral part of the RIPE community.
so are these communities then relevant?
my point was intended more to the ripe community or the ncc providing meeting coordination with an external group, e.g. Euro IoT Regulatory Wannabes. imiho, the coc virus would be more beneficial than the gpl virus. :) you hang out with us, you behave civily.
randy
--- randy@psg.com `gpg --locate-external-keys --auto-key-locate wkd randy@psg.com` signatures are back, thanks to dmarc header butchery
That works forme. For the reasoning see my other message in this thread on the RIPE list. Daniel PS: In my reality the PC does not organise a meeting of its own and therefore has no role in determining things like which CoC applies. The PC has the responsibility for the program of *part of* the RIPE meeting which is organised by RIPE and chaired by our RIPE Chair. On 19 Apr 2021, at 18:50, Niall O'Reilly wrote:
Perhaps the following text would suit:
The RIPE NCC regularly organizes events for communities which are distinct from RIPE. When preparing for such an event, the RIPE NCC will ascertain whether the respective community has adopted the RIPE Code of Conduct and, if not, also ascertain which Code must be applied.
Hi, On Thu, Mar 04, 2021 at 05:02:23AM -0800, Leo Vegoda wrote:
You can find the document here:
https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-documents/other-documents/ripe-c...
I find this a good document. My problem with the previous draft was that it was far too much geared towards sanctions and decisions-in-secrecy (and I said so before). This part is the part I'm totally fine with - be nice, respectful, considerate, and here's a list of things you might not even be aware that you're doing it - raise awareness, set clear expectations. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Anno domini 2021 Gert Doering scripsit: Hi,
On Thu, Mar 04, 2021 at 05:02:23AM -0800, Leo Vegoda wrote:
You can find the document here:
https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-documents/other-documents/ripe-c...
I find this a good document.
My problem with the previous draft was that it was far too much geared towards sanctions and decisions-in-secrecy (and I said so before).
This part is the part I'm totally fine with - be nice, respectful, considerate, and here's a list of things you might not even be aware that you're doing it - raise awareness, set clear expectations.
What Gert said :) Thanks for the efforts put into this <3 Best Max
Leo, TF people, Thank you for coming up with a good and concise code. In particular I like the separation of ‘code’ from ‘enforcement’. This is a good way forward! Here are a few general suggestions. I will make some concrete text suggestions in a separate message soon. 1. I have the feeling that both applicability and behaviours can be described even more concisely: focus even more on the principles and separate them even more clearly from the long lists of examples. Call out the examples specifically as ‘examples’ illustrating the principles; do not write ’includes but is not limited’. 2. Heed Vesna’s suggestion to spell out expected behavior in the face of CoC violations in general terms. I understand that you want to separate ‘enforcement’ from the code, but doing this describing enforcement. As much as the code can speak to unacceptable behaviour it can speak about desired behavior … in general terms. I agree with Vesna that this is empowering and also demanding individual action, which is good. 3. Do not give the PC a special role. The whole paragraph is out of place and suddenly mentioning the RIPE NCC too. It almost looks like someone forgot to delete it from a previous version. Keep formal roles and ‘enforcement’ out of this as much as possible. 4. Do not speak about ‘national laws’, just about ‘laws’. Do not refer to ‘the authorities’ but rather to ‘law enforcement in the appropriate jurisdiction(s)’. There suddenly is mention of the CoC team out of the blue in that paragraph too. Another leftover? 5. If you feel that you have to mention roles and organisations in our community, do so in general terms. It may be worth mentioning that there will be different documents describing ‘support’, ’enforcement’ and ‘sanction’ roles with regard to the CoC and that multiple roles already exist complementing each other. Examples: RIPE Chairs, RIPE NCC, WG Chairs, PC, Trusted Contacts, … . Again: Thank you all very much for the good work! Daniel On 4 Mar 2021, at 14:02, Leo Vegoda wrote:
Dear RIPE community,
An updated draft RIPE Code of Conduct (CoC) is now published for your review. As this is intended to cover all participation within RIPE, it applies to interactions over the Internet, mailing lists, as well as in-person at RIPE Meetings.
You can find the document here:
https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-documents/other-documents/ripe-c...
This draft keeps most of the text in v3.0[1], which was developed by the RIPE Diversity TF. It also draws from CoCs that are in use in other communities, including the Python CoC[2]. The biggest change is that the updated draft covers scope and behaviour only. It doesn’t touch on process or the CoC Team – these aspects will be addressed in two separate documents that are still to come.
Please review the draft and share any comments on the RIPE Discussion List by Friday, 2 April 2021. We welcome suggested changes, but if you don’t see problems with the draft then statements of support are also helpful. The RIPE Chair Team will evaluate your comments and determine whether there is consensus on this draft or additional work is needed.
While we would prefer comments to be shared on the RIPE Discussion List, we recognise that some people might have feedback that they would like to share in private. If you want to provide feedback in private you can contact members of the CoC TF or the RIPE Chair Team directly.
Some key changes in this version:
- The goal of “a neutral, transparent and open framework for report handling” has been removed and will be covered in the upcoming document that describes process. - The scope is defined as “all participation in RIPE.” - Groups and events with separate governance from RIPE may adopt this CoC but will need to manage their own implementation. - A new section covers how the CoC relates to national law. - A new section lists desired behaviours along with an updated list of unacceptable behaviours. - Both lists are arranged alphabetically, to avoid suggesting a hierarchy.
We look forward to reading your thoughts on the current draft.
Kind regards,
Leo Vegoda On behalf of the RIPE Code of Conduct TF
[1] RIPE Meeting Code of Conduct 3.0 - Draft https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/ripe-meetings/ripe-meeting-code-of... [2] Python Community Code of Conduct https://www.python.org/psf/conduct/
_______________________________________________ diversity mailing list diversity@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/diversity
Hello Leo, On 4 Mar 2021, at 14:02, Leo Vegoda <leo@vegoda.org> wrote:
https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-documents/other-documents/ripe-c...
Thanks for your work on this! I think it’s an important step forward. The new proposal says:
If the RIPE CoC Team is alerted to acts that should be reported to the authorities, it will ask the reporter to do so. The CoC Team or RIPE NCC staff may relay the report or make their own if necessary.
How will the team determine whether or not an act should be reported to the authorities? And when is it “necessary” for the CoC team or RIPE NCC staff to make their own report? I strongly feel that it should be up to the person who was harmed by an act whether or not to involve police or other authorities. For the CoC team or RIPE NCC staff to do that without a request and without consent would be a serious breach of trust. Many people may have many different reasons to not involve the police or other authorities in a situation, and they should still be able to report CoC issues. This should be explicit policy. Sasha
On 24 Mar 2021, at 13:09, Sasha Romijn <sasha@mxsasha.eu> wrote:
I strongly feel that it should be up to the person who was harmed by an act whether or not to involve police or other authorities.
This has to be paramount in any framework that handles these issues.
Hi Sasha, On Wed, 2021-03-24 at 14:09 +0100, Sasha Romijn wrote:
I strongly feel that it should be up to the person who was harmed by an act whether or not to involve police or other authorities.
Absolutely Sander
Hi all, Firstly, thank you to all who worked on this. It looks good to me. In reply to Sander and Sasha: currently the CoC says the reporting party, and not the CoC Team, is responsible, if they wish, to make a report to the relevant authorities. It also says the CoC could do so, if they think it is reasonable. If the authorities cannot do anything with this report without a victim (this is the case in some (most?) jurisdictions), then it is up to the authorities to handle this further - they could choose to contact the victim etc. It's out of our hands, so why debate it? Also, I think a CoC cannot preclude a party (whether it is a victim or not) from filing a report with the authorities. It just doesn't have that power. Lastly, I second other people on this list's confusion about why the PC should have anything to do with the approval/applicability of the CoC, in events where there is a PC. Why would they want to have this responsibility? As far as I know it is not currently in any of their Charters. I'd be curious to hear what they think about this. I support other's suggestion to leave that part out. Cheers, Gergana On 24/03/2021 15:18, Sander Steffann wrote:
Hi Sasha,
On Wed, 2021-03-24 at 14:09 +0100, Sasha Romijn wrote:
I strongly feel that it should be up to the person who was harmed by an act whether or not to involve police or other authorities.
Absolutely Sander
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. Why Netherlands? Because the RIPE activities, mail exploders, etc., etc., are hosted by RIPE NCC, which is a Dutch organization, so bound to Dutch laws. So, in the scope of RIPE, if a victim or somebody else, has knowledge of such illegal activity and they decide not to report it, they may be liable but can't be prosecuted (different countries, maybe every outside EU, etc.). However, if the RIPE NCC has knowledge of that (simply because "the thing" happens in a meeting or mailing list, and the staff is reading it, or somebody, including the CoC Team informs the staff, etc.), then it must be reported. Ideally the victim should be encouraged to report it directly, but there is no way for the RIPE NCC to ignore it. In more and more countries, even if victims deny reporting, or decide not to speak with the police about the happening (for example in cases of family violence), others have the obligation to report and the police/courts must prosecute it. Obviously, this must be checked by the NCC counsel to make sure that we are in-sync with applicable laws. Also, if whatever is happening in a meeting, not in a mailing list, all this may depend on the country hosting the meeting, but RIPE NCC, as organizer, is probably also liable in case of not reporting. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 24/3/21 16:41, "ripe-list en nombre de Gergana Petrova" <ripe-list-bounces@ripe.net en nombre de gpetrova@ripe.net> escribió: Hi all, Firstly, thank you to all who worked on this. It looks good to me. In reply to Sander and Sasha: currently the CoC says the reporting party, and not the CoC Team, is responsible, if they wish, to make a report to the relevant authorities. It also says the CoC could do so, if they think it is reasonable. If the authorities cannot do anything with this report without a victim (this is the case in some (most?) jurisdictions), then it is up to the authorities to handle this further - they could choose to contact the victim etc. It's out of our hands, so why debate it? Also, I think a CoC cannot preclude a party (whether it is a victim or not) from filing a report with the authorities. It just doesn't have that power. Lastly, I second other people on this list's confusion about why the PC should have anything to do with the approval/applicability of the CoC, in events where there is a PC. Why would they want to have this responsibility? As far as I know it is not currently in any of their Charters. I'd be curious to hear what they think about this. I support other's suggestion to leave that part out. Cheers, Gergana On 24/03/2021 15:18, Sander Steffann wrote: > Hi Sasha, > > On Wed, 2021-03-24 at 14:09 +0100, Sasha Romijn wrote: >> I strongly feel that it should be up to the person who was harmed by >> an act whether or not to involve police or other authorities. > > Absolutely > Sander > ********************************************** 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.
Hi, [Resending to ripe-list due to a mismatch in subscribed addresses.] I’ve wondered whether to reply to this, but I feel I should to confirm the role of the Trusted Contacts as they (we) currently stand.
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.
I am, obviously, not a lawyer. I do not play one on TV. On a good day I barely even manage to design a network. However, the training for the role as a Trusted Contact was heavily based on what is known as a ‘vertrouwenspersoon’ in Dutch (apologies if I have mis-spelled that, Google suggests one translation as a “confidential advisor"). There is, as I understand it, no legal requirement for a third person to report a crime to the authorities in The Netherlands (or, as far as I am aware the UK or the US). The reason I want to point this out, is to stress that people can contact the Trusted Contacts in complete confidence. We will listen to what you have to say, and in doing so there is no requirement for others to know what is being said to us. Now, as I said at the start, I am not a lawyer, and this may well be different across other parts of the region the RIPE NCC operates, and even meets, in. This is also *my* understanding. It is a very interesting point to discuss, as I wonder if our obligations might be different if we were once again to meet face-to-face in another country — a day I very much look forward to. Cheers, Rob
The reason I want to point this out, is to stress that people can contact the Trusted Contacts in complete confidence. We will listen to what you have to say, and in doing so there is no requirement for others to know what is being said to us.
and that is why you are *trusted* contacts. i am sure, given the creative lot we are, we could come up with corner cases involving murder, war crimes, etc. but i don't think that's why we're here, so let's not. :) randy --- randy@psg.com `gpg --locate-external-keys --auto-key-locate wkd randy@psg.com` signatures are back, thanks to dmarc header butchery
Clearly, we are talking about "corner cases", but may be not so much as a murder. For example, sexual harassment (either in a mailing list, or in private emails after a mailing list message, or in a meeting), it is a very serious crime in many countries, again, not sure if it is the case in Netherlands. (and note that in the community I'm aware of at least 3 sexual harassment cases, with different "degrees", so not so strange situation) The fact that the Trusted Contacts are "confidential" in our own "scope" or "definition", may be not according to Dutch law. In many countries, the only ones that are *free* from reporting a crime to authorities (or to keep silence about them if interrogated), and up to certain extent only, are priest (in confession) and doctors in psychology. May be there are other cases. Again, this is why it will be good to understand the legal counsel perspective here. If Rod receives a complain "in trust", and it is a crime, and the victim don't want to report it to LEA, it is Rod exclusive decision to do it or not. If doesn't do it, he may be liable if it is discovered later on (example a sexual harassment turns into a rape later on). Clearly this is a very uncomfortable situation and I fully understand the need for the trusted contacts, but law is always on top of all that, we like it or not. Further to that, if the CoC is applied to "x" because a victim accused "x" about any kind of violation, and "x" decides is not right, and turns that "x" goes into litigation for that, because even his honor has been put in doubt, it may happen that courts decide that the application of the CoC was wrong, and damaged "x" rights and it may even impose sanctions and even inseminations to RIPE NCC, because RIPE is not a "legal figure" right? And RIPE NCC is the legal organization hosting mailing lists, meetings (virtual and face-to-face), etc. So, it is a very sensible issue, because any application of the CoC, must be clearly backed-up by law. We can't just decide "this is a bad behavior" in our opinion if the concerning jurisdiction is not backing-up it. I think the complete CoC must be validaded by the legal counsel, and not just for corner cases. Taking actions against any community member for something that *even if the full community* believes is wrong, may not be legal. Even a "club of members" can't set rules that aren't conforming to law. El 25/3/21 1:38, "ripe-list en nombre de Randy Bush" <ripe-list-bounces@ripe.net en nombre de randy@psg.com> escribió: > The reason I want to point this out, is to stress that people can > contact the Trusted Contacts in complete confidence. We will listen to > what you have to say, and in doing so there is no requirement for > others to know what is being said to us. and that is why you are *trusted* contacts. i am sure, given the creative lot we are, we could come up with corner cases involving murder, war crimes, etc. but i don't think that's why we're here, so let's not. :) randy --- randy@psg.com `gpg --locate-external-keys --auto-key-locate wkd randy@psg.com` signatures are back, thanks to dmarc header butchery ********************************************** 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.
Dear all, The Code of Conduct Task Force frequently receives input from the RIPE NCC’s legal team. You can be assured that any legal matters in the document will be closely reviewed by Athina and her team. I think it would be most helpful to the TF if you provide feedback on the general principles of the document or any specific questions you might have. Kind regards, Mirjam RIPE Chair
Hi Mirjam, all, I can't agree with that: 1) Inputs from the legal team, should be open and transparently presented to the community. 2) As with any other documents, policies, etc., Community should be able to provide any inputs that we believe necessary, and not just "general principles or specific questions". Do we have minutes from the CoC meetings and contributions from the legal team? In fact, in messages from Leo (9/11/2020) and Niall (10/11/2020), I was suggested to contribute to this work via the mailing list, so that's what we are doing (not just me). Discussing about documents is the way we always did in this community, and this discussion is not subjected to just "general principles or specific questions". Anyone that disagree with any aspect of a document can say so, and if it is not resolved, we just don't reach consensus. Further to that, I want to insist in asking what is the rational for excluding anyone from a TF, without a predefined and community accepted rules for doing so. I insist that it is a discrimination according to my knowledge of Spanish and several English dictionaries (for example "unfairly treating a person or particular group of people differently from others"). Note that I'm making this question in a generic way. Maybe I missed a RIPE document that explains it. I don't recall having seen it before, I don't recall anyone has said publicly he/she was not allowed to participate in any TF before. If such document doesn't exist, and we want to have that possibility without constituting a discrimination, we must work on that. Yes, this is a different topic as the CoC work, you may want to open a new thread on that. Now in a more specific situation, if the rejection of my participation in the CoC TF was a mistake, just say it. I don't need even a justification. Just recognize that it was a wrong decision or lacking backup from the RIPE documents and I will be happy and done with that. Otherwise, "silence" is not the way, in my opinion, and I will need to keep going asking for a rationale here and where necessary, because otherwise, we are showing to the world that we are not really and open and transparent community as we usually say. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 25/3/21 14:37, "ripe-list en nombre de Mirjam Kuehne" <ripe-list-bounces@ripe.net en nombre de mir@zu-hause.nl> escribió: Dear all, The Code of Conduct Task Force frequently receives input from the RIPE NCC’s legal team. You can be assured that any legal matters in the document will be closely reviewed by Athina and her team. I think it would be most helpful to the TF if you provide feedback on the general principles of the document or any specific questions you might have. Kind regards, Mirjam RIPE Chair ********************************************** 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.
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list wrote on 26/03/2021 09:50:
I can't agree with that:
At this point, is there anything left that you do agree with? :)
1) Inputs from the legal team, should be open and transparently presented to the community.
Task forces, committees, etc have reporting structures which allow them room to do what they are tasked to do, and then report back. There's no general principle which mandates that they need to report every single input, and doing so would slow down their work output to a crawl.
2) As with any other documents, policies, etc., Community should be able to provide any inputs that we believe necessary, and not just "general principles or specific questions".
I don't believe any tf / committee has said that they don't want community input. Most, or indeed all of them go out of their way to solicit this. That's why we have mailing lists like, for example, diversity@.
I want to insist in asking what is the rational for excluding anyone from a TF,
Looking at this from a different point of view, you're asking whether people have the right to barge their way on to a task force or committee. Could you point us to any TF structure or committee structure anywhere in the world which accepts this on a point of principle? Nick
Hi Nick, > 1) Inputs from the legal team, should be open and transparently presented to the community. Task forces, committees, etc have reporting structures which allow them room to do what they are tasked to do, and then report back. There's no general principle which mandates that they need to report every single input, and doing so would slow down their work output to a crawl. -> Agree, but that doesn't preclude to have that information open. I believe at some point it was mention that there are minutes available, I was not able to find them, so that's why I'm asking for. > 2) As with any other documents, policies, etc., Community should be able to provide any inputs that we believe necessary, and not just "general principles or specific questions". I don't believe any tf / committee has said that they don't want community input. Most, or indeed all of them go out of their way to solicit this. That's why we have mailing lists like, for example, diversity@. -> Exactly, and that's what I wanted to ask for clarification. I may have been only the wording from Mirjam email which was not clear to me. > I want to insist in asking what is the rational for excluding anyone from a TF, Looking at this from a different point of view, you're asking whether people have the right to barge their way on to a task force or committee. Could you point us to any TF structure or committee structure anywhere in the world which accepts this on a point of principle? -> You are reversing the issue, in the wrong way. Any TF or committee can have rules of engagement or participation or whatever you want to call them *of course*. BUT those rules are explicit and clear since day one, not *after*. For example, we can say "this is the required expertise, or the maximum number of members (first in?), or a combination of those". I don't think we have a RIPE document that say that one of the attributions of the chairs is to constitute committees or TFs in a *closed* way, decided "on the spot" and arbitrarily managed. If we have it, then can't say anymore we are an open community, because that's discriminatory. What I've been asking for since I was denied participating in the CoC TF is very simple: what is the document that shows those rules. You don't think that's sensible to ask? Do you think "no response" is a sensible response? If we don't have those rules set and openly published *before* the call for participants of the TF starts, then they may be changed across the duration of the TF. This is a clear sign of "arbitrarity", if I can say so in English. It is an untrustable situation, common in dictatorial regimes, not open communities. I don't think this is what we want in this community. Correct me if I'm wrong. Nick ********************************************** 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.
Hi Jordi, On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 2:50 AM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es> wrote:
Hi Mirjam, all,
I can't agree with that:
1) Inputs from the legal team, should be open and transparently presented to the community. 2) As with any other documents, policies, etc., Community should be able to provide any inputs that we believe necessary, and not just "general principles or specific questions".
Do we have minutes from the CoC meetings and contributions from the legal team?
Yes, all discussion is very thoroughly minuted and the minutes are shared on the mailing list, as I promised you back in November: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/coc-tf/2020-November/000080.html Kind regards, Leo
Tks Leo, I was understanding there are formal minutes published in the TF web page, and could not find them. I will read thru all the emails then. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 26/3/21 13:30, "ripe-list en nombre de Leo Vegoda" <ripe-list-bounces@ripe.net en nombre de leo@vegoda.org> escribió: Hi Jordi, On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 2:50 AM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es> wrote: > > Hi Mirjam, all, > > I can't agree with that: > > 1) Inputs from the legal team, should be open and transparently presented to the community. > 2) As with any other documents, policies, etc., Community should be able to provide any inputs that we believe necessary, and not just "general principles or specific questions". > > Do we have minutes from the CoC meetings and contributions from the legal team? Yes, all discussion is very thoroughly minuted and the minutes are shared on the mailing list, as I promised you back in November: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/coc-tf/2020-November/000080.html Kind regards, Leo ********************************************** 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.
Dear all, Just to clarify the process we used to form the CoC TF: During the plenary at RIPE 81 and in an email I sent to the ripe-list on 8 September 2020 I asked for volunteers. Before the deadline specified in that email, four volunteers stepped forward. Together with two RIPE NCC support staff, the TF was formed and was announced to the ripe-list on 23 September 2020. On 25 October 2020 Jordi contacted the TF and asked to be added. Please find more details in the timeline below for reference. The TF mail archives are public and all meetings are minuted and published on the TF mailing list (linked from the TF page: https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/tf/code-of-conduct-task-force). Kind regards, Mirjam Kühne RIPE Chair ====== 08 Sep 2020: Open call for volunteers to serve on TF, transparently setting deadline https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ripe-list/2020-September/001959.html 15 Sep 2020: Deadline for volunteers to come forward 17 Sep 20020: RIPE Chair thanks the four volunteers and charges them to set about their work 18 Sep 2020: Code of Conduct Task Force sets to work https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/coc-tf/2020-September/000000.html 23 Sep 2020: Announcing CoC TF to ripe-list https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/coc-tf/2020-October/000066.html 25 Oct 2020: Request received to join TF https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/coc-tf/2020-October/000066.html 06 Nov 2020: TF meets and considers latecomer's request 09 Nov 2020: TF Chair advises latecomer that TF is not empowered to expand its membership, explains the arrangements to be made for transparency, and encourages latecomer to contribute to the work of the TF by posting to the TF mailing list. https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/coc-tf/2020-November/000080.html
Hi Mirjam, The email sent to the list on sept. 8th, was crystal clear "*Please* contact us before 15 September 2020". Your email doesn't say "if you don't tell us before 15th September, you will be excluded from the TF". And even something like that, will be surprising to me, but could be acceptable. If you have 25 volunteers, I will understand that, but if you have 4 members, it doesn't make any sense. For whatever reasons I only followed that later on, when preparing for the RIPE81, but as said your email is not excluding anyone to participate *after* any date. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 26/3/21 13:38, "ripe-list en nombre de Mirjam Kuehne" <ripe-list-bounces@ripe.net en nombre de mir@zu-hause.nl> escribió: Dear all, Just to clarify the process we used to form the CoC TF: During the plenary at RIPE 81 and in an email I sent to the ripe-list on 8 September 2020 I asked for volunteers. Before the deadline specified in that email, four volunteers stepped forward. Together with two RIPE NCC support staff, the TF was formed and was announced to the ripe-list on 23 September 2020. On 25 October 2020 Jordi contacted the TF and asked to be added. Please find more details in the timeline below for reference. The TF mail archives are public and all meetings are minuted and published on the TF mailing list (linked from the TF page: https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/tf/code-of-conduct-task-force). Kind regards, Mirjam Kühne RIPE Chair ====== 08 Sep 2020: Open call for volunteers to serve on TF, transparently setting deadline https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ripe-list/2020-September/001959.html 15 Sep 2020: Deadline for volunteers to come forward 17 Sep 20020: RIPE Chair thanks the four volunteers and charges them to set about their work 18 Sep 2020: Code of Conduct Task Force sets to work https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/coc-tf/2020-September/000000.html 23 Sep 2020: Announcing CoC TF to ripe-list https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/coc-tf/2020-October/000066.html 25 Oct 2020: Request received to join TF https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/coc-tf/2020-October/000066.html 06 Nov 2020: TF meets and considers latecomer's request 09 Nov 2020: TF Chair advises latecomer that TF is not empowered to expand its membership, explains the arrangements to be made for transparency, and encourages latecomer to contribute to the work of the TF by posting to the TF mailing list. https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/coc-tf/2020-November/000080.html ********************************************** 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.
On 24 Mar 2021, at 20:18, Rob Evans <rhe@nosc.ja.net> wrote:
The reason I want to point this out, is to stress that people can contact the Trusted Contacts in complete confidence. We will listen to what you have to say, and in doing so there is no requirement for others to know what is being said to us.
I think as, others have said, that if the complainant thinks that they will loose control of the process you will not have people complaining in the first place. It is bad enough that you have suffered the original activity of concern but then to have it dragged in front of others and to loose control of the process to law enforcement or others is a different but still very unpleasant trauma. Confidentiality and control are so important here if you want it to work. Cheers f
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
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.
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 " target="_blank">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.
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. ********************************************** 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.
Leo, Thanks for all of the work on this by you and the rest of the task force. On 04/03/2021 14.02, Leo Vegoda wrote:
Please review the draft and share any comments on the RIPE Discussion List by Friday, 2 April 2021.
Hopefully "by Friday, 2 April 2021" includes late in the day today.
Some key changes in this version:
- The goal of “a neutral, transparent and open framework for report handling” has been removed and will be covered in the upcoming document that describes process. - The scope is defined as “all participation in RIPE.” - Groups and events with separate governance from RIPE may adopt this CoC but will need to manage their own implementation. - A new section covers how the CoC relates to national law. - A new section lists desired behaviours along with an updated list of unacceptable behaviours. - Both lists are arranged alphabetically, to avoid suggesting a hierarchy. > We look forward to reading your thoughts on the current draft.
I'd be happy with this as a code of conduct. I think it's a reasonable revision of the earlier draft, for the parts that it covers. I'm not as sure about the new encouraged behavior section, but I certainly don't see anything there that doesn't fit the RIPE community (or at least what I think are the ideals of the RIPE community). Cheers, -- Shane
participants (23)
-
Alex de Joode -
Benno Overeinder -
Cynthia Revström -
Daniel Karrenberg -
Eileen Gallagher -
Erik Bais -
Fearghas Mckay -
Gergana Petrova -
Gert Doering -
Hank Nussbacher -
Jim Reid -
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ -
Leo Vegoda -
Maximilian Wilhelm -
Mirjam Kuehne -
Niall O'Reilly -
Nick Hilliard -
Randy Bush -
Rob Evans -
Sander Steffann -
Sasha Romijn -
Shane Kerr -
Vesna Manojlovic