[coc-tf] Draft Minutes – CoC TF Thirty-Seventh Call

Dear TF members,

Here are the minutes from our last call.

Cheers

Kjerstin

***

7 December 15:00 (UTC+2)

Attendees: Antony Gollan, Brian Nisbet, Leo Vegoda, Salam Yamout

Scribe: Kjerstin Burdiek

Summary: The TF reviewed the updated draft process document. They discussed changes in the sections about how the CoC Team would handle spurious reports and about the RIPE Chair’s role in appeals. They also considered the wording in the section about data protection and what could be done to best indemnify team members against possible legal action. The group decided that they could include some language to this effect in the recruitment process document and would consult with the RIPE NCC’s Legal team to see if this should be in the main process document too. There was an action on Antony to revise the document and share it with the other TF members for discussion, after which the TF would publish the revised document in late January.

1. Minutes

The minutes from the last meeting were approved.

2. Agenda

The item on common law was postponed until next meeting, as Athina was not present.

3. Actions

-(Ongoing) TF to think about how the CoC Team and the WG Chairs would work together to manage discussions on mailing lists. Including tools, e.g. Mattermost channel

This action remained ongoing but would be picked up by the CoC Team. 

-Athina to evaluate the risk of discovery in common-law jurisdictions and what language is needed in communications templates.

This action was postponed until Athina could be present.

-RIPE NCC to look into including a clause indemnifying CoC Team members for communications in apps including Mattermost and Zoom.

This action was postponed until Athina could be present.

-Leo to follow up with the RIPE Chair Team about whether the RIPE Chair should be able to overturn a decision in an appeal.

This action was completed. Leo had shared possible approaches to the appeals process with the RIPE Chair Team, and they had preferred the option to act as appropriate in an appeal. The Chair Team had suggested the IETF ombudsperson procedure as a reference for this process.

4. Document Updates

Antony shared the RIPE NCC’s updates to the document. This included clarifying that the RIPE Chair had oversight over the CoC Team and could remove team members for not properly performing their roles. 

Leo suggested different wording in the section about anonymous reports to clarify that they were referring to reports from an unnamed source.

Antony shared an update in the section stating that spurious reports would be dismissed, which was based on a change mentioned in the TF’s RIPE Labs blog post. 

Brian suggested some new language to make it clearer how the CoC Team would respond to these reports.

Leo suggested not outlining specific examples of how the team would respond and instead stating the team would act according to their best judgment. 

Brian said having one example would be helpful for readers.

The TF agreed to include one short example.

Antony asked whether the RIPE Chair would only be consulted if an appeal was escalated to its final stage or if the RIPE Chair would always be involved in an appeal.

Leo said the wording in the text regarding this issue was fine. He suggested changing the text that said the RIPE Chair could only overturn an appeal if the process was improperly followed. Instead, the Chair should have the freedom to make any decision no matter how the process was followed.

Antony suggested new wording.

Leo said this sounded fine but should be checked with the RIPE Chair Team.

Antony reviewed the changes to the section on data protection that had been made by the RIPE NCC’s Legal team.

Leo questioned whether the section on data retention implied former CoC Team members could be involved in legal disputes up to five years later and so would need to access report data again.

Brian said they would not have access to the data but would simply be mentioned in the court case.

Antony asked whether this data would be stored in the CoC Team archives or with a legal team.

Leo said this section might discourage people from joining the team given that they might be involved well beyond their term if there was a court case.

Brian said it was beyond the ability of the TF to fully protect against this, as it was a legal matter. They simply needed to indemnify team members as much as possible and ensure compliant data protection.

Leo agreed indemnity was the main piece missing here. They needed to explain their indemnity process in the document.

Brian said indemnity did not belong in this document. 

Antony suggested putting this in the CoC Team recruitment document or in the website documentation.

Leo said the recruitment process document would be an acceptable place for this. He also suggested changing the wording in this section.

Salam agreed with Brian that it was beyond the TF’s control to ensure CoC Team members would never be involved in later legal cases, just as former employees could be called in to testify in cases about their former employers.

5. AOB

Leo asked Antony to share an updated draft of the document before the next meeting so they could then discuss any final changes needed. They would also need input from Athina about risk to determine whether to update the legal sections. The TF should publish the revised draft in late January, and then they could work on recruiting CoC Team members at the next RIPE Meeting. 

Antony shared that he would have limited availability for the next two months.

Leo suggested simply discussing things asynchronously in that case, rather than meeting. 

Antony said this would work for him and should be fine for Athina as well.

Leo said he would send a message to the list that there would be no upcoming meeting unless absolutely necessary.

6. Actions
-Antony to check with the RIPE Chair Team about the RIPE Chair’s role in appeals.
-Athina to evaluate the risk of discovery in common-law jurisdictions and what language is needed in communications templates.
-RIPE NCC to look into including a clause indemnifying CoC Team members for communications in apps including Mattermost and Zoom.
-RIPE NCC to share an updated draft document with any necessary changes.