[coc-tf] Draft Minutes - Code of Conduct TF: Eleventh Call

Dear all,
Thanks for the minutes and I must apologize for missing one more meeting
tomorrow due to a physio therapy session that I cannot move unless I am
willing to live in pain over the entire week-end.

These are few thoughts:
- Minutes are clear but they do not highlight whether a decision was made.
Sometimes it is not clear what was decided
- Regarding the MENOG, SEE, etc.  I think that the same coc must apply to
all RIPE NCC organized events.  It is true that regions have cultural
differences, but this is not an excuse for aggressive, disrespectful, and
demeaning behavior.  In case of an incident the cultural differences could
be used by the investigation team.
- Regarding WG chairs, maybe all WG chairs should put a link to the coc
when they start their session (in the same slide that they put their
picture) to remind everyone of the importance of the coc.  Again, in case
of an incident in a particular WG, the WG chair can play a role in the
investigation as a witness where s/he can give his/her opinion.  I do not
think we should make it more complicated than that.  It is not about
territory, it is about we all adhere to the same understanding of the rules.

- When is the exact date and time of the coc BOF at RIPE 82?

- Next meeting is on the 14th of May?

THanks and sorry again
-s

On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 10:55 PM Antony Gollan <agollan at ripe.net> wrote:

> Dear TF members,
>
> Here are the minutes from our last call.
>
> Cheers
>
> Ant
>
>
>
> **** *
>
> *Draft Minutes – CoC TF Eleventh Call*
>
> 23 April 2021, 16:30 (UTC+1)
>
> *Present:* Denesh Bhabuta, Athina Fragkouli, Antony Gollan, Brian Nisbet,
> Leo Vegoda
>
> *Summary: *The TF discussed how the (future) CoC Team would interact with
> the WG Chairs. This would best be seen as an ongoing relationship supported
> by regular communication rather than something defined by strict rules. As
> part of this, it was noted that the CoC Team should operate on the basis of
> reports, rather than proactively policing community discussions. The TF
> discussed how to respond to feedback objecting on the basis that this led
> down the path of socialism. It was agreed that this should be referred to
> the RIPE Chair team as it was out of scope for the TF. The TF discussed
> feedback from the community on its draft CoC (v4), noting that some people
> wanted more detail and examples while others preferred a focus on general
> principles. The tension between these points will be discussed in a BoF
> with the community at RIPE 82. The current draft also stated that the PCs
> of regional communities such as MENOG, ENOG and SEE would determine
> whether/how the CoC was implemented in their communities. It was agreed
> that no one appeared to want this, and so there should be a single CoC for
> all meetings organised by the RIPE NCC (perhaps with some implementation
> differences, such as local/regional CoC Teams).
>
> *1. Minutes*
>
> The minutes from the previous meeting were approved without changes.
>
> *2. Agenda*
>
> Leo noted that he had added an item to the agenda regarding an email they
> had received on the CoC Task Force mailing list the day before and how they
> should respond.
>
> *3. Actions*
>
> *- RIPE NCC to review reporting requirements to inform a process of
> improvements to the CoC (likely tooling and legal analysis).*
>
> Antony said he and Athina had been looking at this. They had thought about
> the steps that would need to happen (report made, CoC Team informed, report
> archived, etc.) and then listed the legal considerations for each step (who
> can access reports, GDPR considerations, etc.) They had then tried to
> anticipate what would be needed in terms of implementation. Once the
> document was ready, they could share this with the group for feedback
> before approaching their technical colleagues within the RIPE NCC to get
> input from them.
>
> *- TF to think about how the CoC Team and WG Chairs would work together to
> manage discussions on MLs. *
>
> Leo noted that Mirjam had shared some guidance on this recently and asked
> if everyone had read this.
>
> Brian said he’d talked to Mirjam about this. He thought it needed to be
> the case that the CoC Team shouldn’t be able to order the WG Chairs around.
> At the same time, the WG Chairs should not be able to ignore the CoC Team.
> It needed to be about cooperation.
>
> Leo said this probably needed more thought. He thought this would be a
> relationship that would need to be sustained.
>
> Denesh asked if there could be something to support an ongoing dialogue
> between the CoC Team and the WG Chairs (perhaps a mailing list or a chat
> channel). That way, if something came up on the lists, the CoC Team could
> raise the issue with the relevant WG chairs before it became an issue.
>
> Brian said he was all for more communication between the two groups, but
> he didn’t think they should set an expectation that the CoC Team would be
> proactively looking for issues – it should operate on the basis of reports.
> However, he agreed that it would be a relationship and there would need to
> be a dialogue. The chairs couldn’t take a “My WG – my rules” approach. He
> wanted to be careful to ensure they didn’t create a strict set of rules for
> this, as it was better to have a loose and ongoing relationship that was
> maintained by both sides.
>
> Denesh agreed and thought this was why they might want a real-time
> channel, as it would allow an agreement to be reached much quicker.
>
> Leo said he did like the idea of WG chairs having the ability to ask
> questions from other people to get broader input. Having someone they could
> trust to look out for the community’s best interest would be helpful, and
> having some kind of tooling along these lines would be good. He added that
> this could use some more thought, and so he would keep it on the agenda for
> the next meeting. It could also roll back into the tooling action item
> above.
>
> Brian suggested (possibly after RIPE 82), they might want to have a group
> call with the RIPE Chair Team before they started handing things over to a
> CoC Team.
>
> Leo said it would be good to have that on the agenda for their next
> discussion with the RIPE Chair Team. He added that when Denesh and he had
> met them last time, they discussed that as the TF was quite small, they
> were happy to meet with the entire TF (the only reason not to do this was
> in terms of the coordination of diaries).
>
> *- TF to think about the appropriate level of process that would allow
> improvements to the CoC. *
>
> Leo said they needed to get the balance right between formal/informal. If
> they wanted to repeat the current [TF] process to make future improvements
> to the CoC, it would take quite a lot of time. On the other hand, if an
> alternative approach was too lightweight, it might be easier to make
> mistakes.
>
> Brian said he thought they should approve three documents and then the TF
> should disband. They would then have a CoC Team, and these would be the
> best people to drive the process. Maybe there would be a need for a future
> TF if that process broke down, or if huge changes were needed, but
> otherwise he thought it should be that team that was responsible for this.
> He thought their work as a TF was going well – but it had also gone very
> slowly. There were valid reasons for this – it was the nature of the RIPE
> community and the various legal and other interests involved.
>
> Leo said he shared Brian’s understanding that the TF would disband at the
> completion of their third document. His intention was that they provide
> some level of guidance in their documents on how to update those documents.
> If they didn’t provide some guidance on the process, it could become
> chaotic, and that would not be to anyone’s advantage.
>
> He thought they should give this some thought and so he would carry over
> this action item.
>
> *- TF to think about their schedules between April/June and consider
> changing call times. This can be coordinated via the ML to allow a new
> schedule before April.*
>
> Leo said they had meetings booked until the end of June, so they could
> close this item.
>
> *4. Feedback*
>
> *- Responding to Rolf*
>
> Leo said he had two questions: 1) whether Rolf’s request was within their
> scope, and 2) what they should do. He thought Rolf was talking about RIPE
> rather than the RIPE NCC (as in his email) and he noted that it he
> addressed his email to the Diversity TF. He noted that Rolf said he wanted
> them to move away from socialist ideas and adopt an apolitical stance. He
> found it difficult to think about how to reply to the email. He read it as:
> “I don’t like what you’re doing, so please don’t do it.”
>
> Denesh said the way he read it, it seemed like he was protesting change –
> i.e. “This is how things used to be, they worked well – so why change?” He
> agreed that this was out of their scope, and it should go to the RIPE Chair
> Team. He didn’t understand the political aspect that Rolf was talking
> about, he assumed he was concerned with political correctness, but it
> wasn’t about that – it was about the community addressing issues.
>
> Brian said he’d seen a lot of this reactionary stuff in response to
> diversity and inclusion efforts that assumed all of this led to Soviet
> Russia. He was actually surprised they hadn’t gotten more of this, but
> agreed this wasn’t for the TF to deal with.
>
> Leo said he would ask Mirjam and Niall to handle this, as he didn’t think
> it was within their scope – especially since it addressed the Diversity TF
> and they couldn’t have impact on the charter of another TF.
>
> *- Tension between calls for additional details in lists and calls for
> less detail with greater focus on general guiding principles*
>
> Leo said there were two items he had pulled out for discussion. The first
> was the tension between the request for more specific details on one side,
> and those who wanted less detail and more focus on general principles on
> the other. To give examples, it seemed Jordi wanted a lot more detail,
> while Randy wanted less detail and more focus on principles. They could go
> with one approach or the other – otherwise they could make slight
> adjustments and stick with the balance they currently had.
>
> Denesh said they would always get a pull between these two perspectives.
> They had started with general principles and a small list, but had added
> more detail to avoid ambiguity. And now people wanted both more and less
> detail. He thought they would never resolve this completely.
>
> Brian agreed with Denesh. He was on Randy’s side on this and thought it
> was not possible to please everyone. As a community of engineers, they were
> liable to ask why they couldn’t map a specific example against the
> document. It was impossible to cover everything, and the more precise they
> got, the more likely it was that people could argue that something not
> explicitly identified in the CoC was allowed. He thought they should
> continue as they were.
>
> Leo asked Athina if there were advantages or disadvantages with either
> approach from an implementation and enforcement perspective.
>
> Athina said if they could agree on certain negative behaviours that were
> unacceptable, there was no harm in providing a non-exhaustive list. It was
> impossible to provide a full list. Even in legal codes, you had general
> principles and some general rules, and you tried to make these as broad as
> possible to fit specific situations. It was perfectly acceptable to provide
> a non-exhaustive list. They could look at some of the feedback and see if
> there were any points that were valid and created a new principle that they
> should include. She suggested they could make a table with a list of the
> points made and for each item say why they thought the draft should be
> amended (or not).
>
> Leo said he was on the side of general principles. Even though they had
> tried to be careful with their language to make it clear that these were
> non-exhaustive lists, they could give the wording more attention when they
> reviewed the draft.
>
> Leo noted that their BoF at RIPE 82 had been approved. He said he could
> draft some slides for this with some alternatives and they could use this
> to get feedback from the community.
>
> Action: Leo to draft slides for RIPE 82 BoF to support discussion with the
> community on the balance between precise definitions vs general principles.
>
> *- CoC TF and ENOG, MENOG, and SEE.*
>
> Leo asked if there was any view within the RIPE NCC on this.
>
> Antony said what he and Athina had originally intended was not necessarily
> to say that the PCs of these communities had any role “as PCs”, but as
> representatives of their communities that they could easily contact and
> have a discussion with. Thinking of the mailing lists for these
> communities, it was unlikely that a mail sent there would get a response,
> for example. He understood that at least one of these PCs had indicated
> they weren’t interested in speaking on behalf of their community in this
> way.
>
> Leo said he understood they had been using “PC” as a stand-in for
> “independently organised.” In his discussions with the RIPE Chair Team, he
> understood that the RIPE NCC was the organiser of the meetings for these
> communities. When they had started discussing this as a TF, they hadn’t
> properly understood what the organisational status of these communities
> was. He thought they needed clarity on this – whether they were separate
> communities or activities of the RIPE community that were organised by the
> RIPE NCC.
>
> Athina said she thought they should clarify whether they were talking
> about whether these communities would “adopt” the RIPE CoC or whether they
> were talking about how they would implement the CoC. For example, the same
> CoC might be implemented, but with different regional CoC Teams making any
> determinations. She understood they were talking about the latter case.
>
> Brian said the message they’d gotten from the community (that was paying
> attention and engaging on the topic) was that they didn’t understand why
> the TF was asking the question. With the RIPE Chair Team and the RIPE NCC
> Managing Director seemingly behind the idea of a single CoC for all of
> RIPE, it seemed they should be able to do this. He’d prefer they had one
> CoC that was implemented by regional CoC Teams, and if communities wanted
> logistical support or funding from the RIPE NCC, they would need to abide
> by it.
>
> Leo said one of the advantages of the approach they’d taken was that
> they’d asked and no one had requested that the CoC not apply to their
> community. Because they hadn’t received this feedback, if they now changed
> the wording to something along the lines of “Wherever there is a RIPE NCC
> event that is not a RIPE Meeting, it will use this CoC unless there is
> another CoC that provides a viable alternative.” This made it an
> implementation problem. He was thinking about this from a volunteer
> perspective – if they had this being used for all of the various RIPE NCC
> meetings (including the various governmental meetings as well as regional
> meetings), that might create quite a burden on a single CoC Team. But if
> they’d moved from “Are we going to do this?” to “How are we going to do
> this? – then that was process. Based on the nodding heads on the call, he
> said that the agreement was that the CoC would apply to all events
> organised by the RIPE NCC and they would next need to think about how this
> would work.
>
> Brian said if they updated the text, they might need to consider
> specifying who made the decision (about how/whether the CoC was
> implemented).
>
> Leo said he was thinking the approach could be to say that the CoC applied
> unless there was another CoC that was just as good. He was thinking in
> terms of various financial regulations that allowed an equivalent regulator
> in another country to act as a substitute for the one in the home country.
>
> Brian asked who decided whether an alternative CoC was just as good.
>
> Leo said that was an implementation question. There were people within the
> RIPE NCC who might be able to look at this. As they would be the ones
> organising the event, perhaps it would be preferable for them to assess
> this. He asked Athina if he had just dumped something big on them.
>
> Athina asked who they (the RIPE NCC) were to impose the CoC on another
> community?
>
> Leo said as long as they weren’t aware of an alternative CoC, he didn’t
> think they should worry about it at this stage.
>
> Athina agreed and added that it would be good to have this clarify in the
> scope.
>
> Leo said they would have some time to agree on the wording.
>
> *5. AoB*
>
> Brian noted that in another community they were currently dealing with the
> weaponisation of a CoC. This essentially came down to someone claiming
> another person had used insulting language against them. They were right,
> but this had been in reaction to threatening communication from the person
> making the complaint. He was mentioning this because in their CoC, they
> talked about aggressive communication and being accepting of disagreement.
> He thought this was right, but they needed to consider what happened if
> someone reacted to another person who broke the CoC with language or
> behvaiour that itself broke the CoC.
>
> Leo said this was about making it clear that they should rely more on
> principles than lists of behaviour, and making it clear that they were
> relying on the CoC Team to use its good sense.
>
> Brian said he was aware of some good wording from another source and he
> would share it with the group.
>
> Brian noted that the BoF at RIPE 82 would require strong moderation, as
> people could start ratholing. People would need to be able to voice their
> opinion, but it would be important to keep the session on track.
>
> Leo said he thought they were right, and they would need to plan this
> correctly.
>
> *6. Action Items*
>
> *Action: TF to review ML guidance from Mirjam *
> *Action: TF to think about implementing a method for WG chairs could get
> advice about implementing the CoC in their WG*
> *Action: Leo to draft slides for RIPE 82 BoF to support discussion with
> the community on the balance between precise definitions vs gen*eral
> principles
> *Action: Leo to include an updated agenda to ensure a correct balance
> between communicating and listening from the community*
>
>
> --
> coc-tf mailing list
> coc-tf at ripe.net
> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/coc-tf
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/coc-tf/attachments/20210429/7efd104b/attachment-0001.html>