[coc-tf] CoC Process and Next Steps

Ant,

My take on this...

1: I think it would be good to keep a record of everything, yes. Securely and for the time periods mentioned, for that reason.

2: I strongly suspect the summary reports would be sufficient, because once the decision has been made the other evidence shouldn't be needed in an "original" form. Obviously time would have to be given to allow for an appeal or whatever, but certainly I don't think it would be needed for the longer term.

Thanks,

Brian


Brian Nisbet (he/him)

Service Operations Manager

HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network

1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland

+35316609040 brian.nisbet at heanet.ie www.heanet.ie

Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270

________________________________
From: coc-tf <coc-tf-bounces at ripe.net> on behalf of Antony Gollan <agollan at ripe.net>
Sent: Wednesday 6 April 2022 10:32
To: coc-tf at ripe.net <coc-tf at ripe.net>
Subject: Re: [coc-tf] CoC Process and Next Steps

CAUTION[External]: This email originated from outside of the organisation. Do not click on links or open the attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe.


Hi Brian, all,

After getting some initial feedback from Legal, I have a couple of
questions:

1. From an earlier discussion, I think we said we might want to have
some record of people who were the subject of a report but didn't quite
cross the threshold for actions being applied.

This was so the CoC Team could be aware of people who repeatedly go
right up to the line without actually crossing it. Perhaps after a
number of repeat reports, the CoC Team might eventually apply actions
that it wouldn't have if it was an isolated case.

With that in mind, would it be good to include in a line that ALL
reports will be kept for a minimum period? I'm thinking this could be
two RIPE Meetings (whether this ends up being 12 or 18 months) -
provided this is okay in terms of the legal stuff.

2. Legal has also asked whether we would keep any supporting information
used for investigations (photos, video, messages) and advised that we
might want to clarify this in the text.

My initial thought is that once the CoC Team has finished assessing a
report, it could archive a summary its decision and delete all of the
supporting information - though perhaps this summary could outline what
kind of evidence was used to support the CoC Team's decision.

Thoughts?

Cheers

Ant

On 06/04/2022 11:00, Brian Nisbet wrote:
> Thanks Ant.
>
> Obviously we'll discuss more on Thursday, but I think I get your current
> thinking on this.
>
> Brian
>
> Brian Nisbet (he/him)
>
> Service Operations Manager
>
> HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network
>
> 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland
>
> +35316609040 brian.nisbet at heanet.ie www.heanet.ie<http://www.heanet.ie>
>
> Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* coc-tf <coc-tf-bounces at ripe.net> on behalf of Antony Gollan
> <agollan at ripe.net>
> *Sent:* Monday 4 April 2022 10:08
> *To:* coc-tf at ripe.net <coc-tf at ripe.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [coc-tf] CoC Process and Next Steps
> CAUTION[External]: This email originated from outside of the
> organisation. Do not click on links or open the attachments unless you
> recognise the sender and know the content is safe.
>
>
> Hi Brian,
>
> I've asked Legal to look at whether 18/36 months can work - I think this
> ultimately boils down to whether we can provide a legally-acceptable
> rationale for whatever time periods we give - and this seems to make
> sense to me.
>
> On the RIPE Chair team point, note that the current wording in the draft
> (v5) is:
>
>   >If the group decides that strong actions should be taken, it will
> inform the RIPE Chair Team and the RIPE NCC before they are implemented.
>
> Also agree that we probably don't want to get stuck in the weeds in
> terms of defining minor/major. I wonder if we could simply think of
> "major" in terms of "does the RIPE NCC have to implement something?" (a
> mailing list ban, taking someone's meeting badge, etc).
>
> Looking at the consequences in the current draft, that would look like
> this (below). At first glance this seems about right - if someone was
> kicked out of the RIPE Meeting for a day, you'd probably want something
> like a 24-36 month "probation period" (in terms of having a record of
> that event).
>
> Cheers
>
> Ant
>
> ***
>
> Meeting Sessions and Social Events
>
> MINOR
> 1. Asked to apologise
> 2. Removed from the room for a period of time to allow emotions to settle
> 3. Removed from the room for the remainder of a session
>
> MAJOR
> 4. Removed from the meeting venue for the day
> 5. Removed from the social event for the remainder of the event
> 6. Removed from the meeting venue for the remainder of the meeting
> 7. Not allowed to attend future events for a period of time
> 8. Permanently banned from attending RIPE events
>
> Mailing List
>
> MINOR
> 1. Asked to apologise
> 2. Publicly told not to repeat a kind of post
>
> MAJOR
> 3. Temporary ban from posting to the list
> 4. Permanent ban from posting to the list
> 5. Temporary ban from posting to any RIPE mailing list
> 6. Permanent ban from posting to any RIPE mailing list
>
>
> On 04/04/2022 10:38, Brian Nisbet wrote:
>> Leo,
>>
>> On timings... my justification here is that the dates of meetings aren't
>> set, so there's a twofold problem, really. I would like the record to be
>> kept for at least the two meetings *following*​ the event at which the
>> CoC was breached (and yes, I'm assuming that most of our breaches will
>> happen at meetings). Furthermore, if one autumn meeting happens in
>> October and the next in November, that means the information may, in
>> some circumstances, only be held for one meeting.
>>
>> On the major and minor, I'm not saying we should determine them, rather
>> I'm saying that classification in general might not be a great idea.
>>
>> Brian
>>
>> Brian Nisbet (he/him)
>>
>> Service Operations Manager
>>
>> HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network
>>
>> 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland
>>
>> +35316609040 brian.nisbet at heanet.ie www.heanet.ie<http://www.heanet.ie> <http://www.heanet.ie>
>>
>> Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From:* Leo Vegoda <leo at vegoda.org>
>> *Sent:* Friday 1 April 2022 15:26
>> *To:* Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet at heanet.ie>
>> *Cc:* coc-tf at ripe.net <coc-tf at ripe.net>; chair-team at ripe.net
>> <chair-team at ripe.net>
>> *Subject:* Re: [coc-tf] CoC Process and Next Steps
>> CAUTION[External]: This email originated from outside of the
>> organisation. Do not click on links or open the attachments unless you
>> recognise the sender and know the content is safe.
>>
>>
>> Hi Brian,
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 1, 2022 at 1:37 AM Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet at heanet.ie> wrote:
>>>
>>> Leo,
>>>
>>> Great stuff, thank you!
>>>
>>> The data protection piece is fair, albeit I'd love to expand that to 18 and 36 months to guarantee it covering 3 meetings to more easily spot patterns, but Athina is the expert here.
>>
>> We didn't spend a long time discussing the specific periods. I suppose
>> there are two questions:
>>
>> - What advantage do we get from retaining records for 50% longer?
>> - How difficult would it be to change the record retention policy, if
>> the Code of Conduct Team wanted to do so?
>>
>>> Under 4 we still say: "In all cases, the RIPE Chair Team and the RIPE NCC will be informed of a decision by the CoC Team before it is implemented." Is it intended to change that language to reflect only major (you said significant, but if we're using minor/major language elsewhere, I'm assuming significant = major) breaches will be
>> informed prior to implementation?
>>
>> You are right. That needs to be adjusted before we publish the draft.
>>
>>> My biggest concern is that we now have to create broad classifications of what a minor or major breach is, which I'll admit I'd been hoping we could avoid.
>>
>> Can we not leave that to the Code of Conduct Team, when they are
>> selected? We have given non-exhaustive examples in the lists. If we
>> try to define major and minor we'll still need the Code of Conduct
>> Team to apply their good sense when something different happens.
>> Perhaps it is simplest for them to take account of each individual
>> situation and set a category accordingly?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Leo
>>
>
> --
> coc-tf mailing list
> coc-tf at ripe.net
> https://mailman.ripe.net/
> <https://mailman.ripe.net/>

--
coc-tf mailing list
coc-tf at ripe.net
https://mailman.ripe.net/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/coc-tf/attachments/20220406/327b5fd2/attachment-0001.html>