You are here: Home > Participate > Join a Discussion > RIPE Forum
RIPE Forum v1.4.1

RIPE Diversity

Threaded
Collapse

[diversity] Updated Draft RIPE Code of Conduct Published for Community Review

User Image

Leo Vegoda

2021-03-04 14:02:23 CET

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-code-of-conduct/

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-conduct-3-0-draft
[2] Python Community Code of Conduct https://www.python.org/psf/conduct/

User Image

Leo Vegoda

2021-03-18 18:21:27 CET

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 _at_ vegoda _dot_ 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-code-of-conduct/
>
> 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-conduct-3-0-draft
> [2] Python Community Code of Conduct https://www.python.org/psf/conduct/

Daniel Karrenberg

2021-03-22 17:13:46 CET

RIPE NCC staff member

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-code-of-conduct/
>
> 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-conduct-3-0-draft
> [2] Python Community Code of Conduct 
> https://www.python.org/psf/conduct/
>
> _______________________________________________
> diversity mailing list
> diversity _at_ ripe _dot_ net
> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/diversity

User Image

Jordi Palet Martinez

2021-03-23 13:40:17 CET

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 _at_ ripe _dot_ net en nombre de leo _at_ vegoda _dot_ 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 _at_ vegoda _dot_ 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-code-of-conduct/
    >
    > 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-conduct-3-0-draft
    > [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.





Sasha Romijn

2021-03-24 14:09:50 CET

Hello Leo,

On 4 Mar 2021, at 14:02, Leo Vegoda <leo _at_ vegoda _dot_ org> wrote:
> https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-documents/other-documents/ripe-code-of-conduct/

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
User Image

Gergana Petrova

2021-03-24 16:40:37 CET

RIPE NCC staff member

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
> 

User Image

Jordi Palet Martinez

2021-03-24 17:21:28 CET

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 _at_ ripe _dot_ net en nombre de gpetrova _at_ ripe _dot_ 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.





Rob Evans

2021-03-25 01:11:04 CET

Hi,

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

User Image

Jordi Palet Martinez

2021-03-25 10:08:38 CET

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 _at_ ripe _dot_ net en nombre de randy _at_ psg _dot_ 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 _at_ psg _dot_ com
    `gpg --locate-external-keys --auto-key-locate wkd randy _at_ psg _dot_ 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.





Daniel Karrenberg

2021-03-25 11:42:47 CET

RIPE NCC staff member

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


User Image

Jordi Palet Martinez

2021-03-25 12:22:19 CET

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 _at_ ripe _dot_ net en nombre de dfk _at_ ripe _dot_ 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.





Alex de Joode

2021-03-25 13:02:08 CET

​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 _at_ idgara _dot_ nl | +31651108221 


On Thu, 25-03-2021 12h 22min, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list <ripe-list _at_ ripe _dot_ 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 _at_ ripe _dot_ net en nombre de " target="_blank">dfk _at_ ripe _dot_ 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

User Image

Mirjam Kühne

2021-03-25 14:37:02 CET

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


User Image

Jordi Palet Martinez

2021-03-26 10:50:04 CET

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 _at_ ripe _dot_ net en nombre de mir _at_ zu-hause _dot_ 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.





User Image

Jordi Palet Martinez

2021-03-26 13:27:25 CET

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, [email protected]

-> 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.





User Image

Leo Vegoda

2021-03-26 13:29:55 CET

Hi Jordi,

On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 2:50 AM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
<jordi.palet _at_ consulintel _dot_ 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

User Image

Jordi Palet Martinez

2021-03-26 13:32:52 CET

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 _at_ ripe _dot_ net en nombre de leo _at_ vegoda _dot_ org> escribió:

    Hi Jordi,

    On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 2:50 AM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
    <jordi.palet _at_ consulintel _dot_ 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.





User Image

Mirjam Kühne

2021-03-26 13:38:26 CET

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




User Image

Jordi Palet Martinez

2021-03-26 13:50:27 CET

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 _at_ ripe _dot_ net en nombre de mir _at_ zu-hause _dot_ 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.





Alex de Joode

2021-03-26 15:57:20 CET

On Fri, 26-03-2021 15h 55min, Alex de Joode <alex _at_ idgara _dot_ net> wrote:
> 
On Fri, 26-03-2021 13h 38min, Mirjam Kuehne <mir _at_ zu-hause _dot_ nl> wrote:> 
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
> 
Thank Mirjam,

I'm a bit curious about the word 'empowered'.

Does that mean that a TF can only do what is explicitly allowed, and there is no room for 'common sense'/'filling in the blancs' ?

​-- 
IDGARA | Alex de Joode | alex _at_ idgara _dot_ nl | +31651108221


User Image

Mirjam Kühne

2021-03-26 17:33:09 CET

Hi Alex,

On 26/03/2021 15:55, Alex de Joode wrote:
> On Fri, 26-03-2021 13h 38min, Mirjam Kuehne <mir _at_ zu-hause _dot_ nl> wrote:
>
>     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
>     
>
> Thank Mirjam,
>
> I
> 'm
> a bit curious about the word 'empowered'.
>
> Does that mean that a TF can only do what is explicitly allowed, and
> there is no room for 'common sense'/'filling in the blancs' ?
>
>

There is always room for common sense in RIPE. The request was discussed
by the TF and as a result, the TF communicated that the membership of
the TF had been decided and that it wouldn't make sense at that point to
add more members as the work was well underway. In addition to that the
TF took a number of steps to increase transparency and to make it easier
to contribute to the work of the TF.

Kind regards,
Mirjam






User Image

Jordi Palet Martinez

2021-03-26 17:55:25 CET

Common sense for me is on the other way around. A TF with 5 people is much better than just 4. Even 10 people, maybe not 25.

Common sense is to define up-front what is the allowed membership, not afterwards having a discussion about that and then making an arbitrary decision, because the original email on the call for the TF was non crystal clear.

Furthermore, it seems, it was not just the chairs decision?

It is interesting to see that, unless I missed it, there is nothing about that discussion in the minutes (I read this morning the emails in the list for September-October-November). So, if there was such discussion in the TF, then it was not minuted (so not so transparent).

So how to trust the rest of the minutes, if that's the case?

I recall also that the archive of the mailing list was open only once I asked for it. So the goal of transparency was not there from day 1.
 

El 26/3/21 17:33, "ripe-list en nombre de Mirjam Kuehne" <ripe-list-bounces _at_ ripe _dot_ net en nombre de mir _at_ zu-hause _dot_ nl> escribió:

    Hi Alex,

    On 26/03/2021 15:55, Alex de Joode wrote:
    > On Fri, 26-03-2021 13h 38min, Mirjam Kuehne <mir _at_ zu-hause _dot_ nl> wrote:
    >
    >     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
    >     
    >
    > Thank Mirjam,
    >
    > I
    > 'm
    > a bit curious about the word 'empowered'.
    >
    > Does that mean that a TF can only do what is explicitly allowed, and
    > there is no room for 'common sense'/'filling in the blancs' ?
    >
    >

    There is always room for common sense in RIPE. The request was discussed
    by the TF and as a result, the TF communicated that the membership of
    the TF had been decided and that it wouldn't make sense at that point to
    add more members as the work was well underway. In addition to that the
    TF took a number of steps to increase transparency and to make it easier
    to contribute to the work of the TF.

    Kind regards,
    Mirjam









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





User Image

Leo Vegoda

2021-03-29 10:30:00 CET

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
User Image

Gergana Petrova

2021-03-29 10:46:52 CET

RIPE NCC staff member

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 
> 
> 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 _at_ ripe _dot_ net
> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/diversity
> 

Daniel Karrenberg

2021-03-29 12:23:14 CET

RIPE NCC staff member

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

Sasha Romijn

2021-03-30 11:29:37 CET

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 _at_ vegoda _dot_ 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 
> 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 _at_ ripe _dot_ net
> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/diversity

User Image

Benno Overeinder

2021-04-02 14:06:11 CET

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 _at_ vegoda _dot_ 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-code-of-conduct/
>>
>> 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-conduct-3-0-draft
>> [2] Python Community Code of Conduct https://www.python.org/psf/conduct/
> 

-- 
Benno J. Overeinder
NLnet Labs
https://www.nlnetlabs.nl/

User Image

Cynthia Revström

2021-04-02 17:59:26 CET

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 _at_ nlnetlabs _dot_ 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 _at_ vegoda _dot_ 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-code-of-conduct/
> >>
> >> 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-conduct-3-0-draft
> >> [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 _at_ ripe _dot_ net
> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/diversity

Daniel Karrenberg

2021-04-21 11:36:38 CET

RIPE NCC staff member

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.

Daniel Karrenberg

2021-04-21 14:18:29 CET

RIPE NCC staff member

On 21 Apr 2021, at 12:57, Hans Petter Holen wrote:

> my naïve view is that, if the ncc is an organiser, then the coc MUST
> apply.
>
>
> We strongly believe that all RIPE NCC-organised events should follow 
> the
> same CoC, and we think this is something the community should be able 
> to
> agree on. ….

The RIPE NCC is of course free to make rules within its area of 
responsibility. I expect that this will happen in the RIPE tradition by 
consulting the communities along the lines Mirjam and Niall are setting 
out within this discussion and not by unilateral action on the part of 
the RIPE NCC. I hope that the RIPE NCC will be able to keep facilitating 
local and regional communities while respecting the local codes and 
customs.

Very probably this discussion is another symptom of how the pandemic 
influences our discourse by preventing face to face, informal  and group 
interactions. I apologise for my part in this. We may very well all 
pretty much agree. ;-)

Daniel