[coc-tf] Draft Minutes – CoC TF Twenty-First Call

Dear TF members,

Here are the minutes from our last call.

Cheers

Kjerstin

***

Draft Minutes – CoC TF Twenty-First Call

11 February 15:30 (UTC+1)

Attendees: Denesh Bhabuta, Athina Fragkouli, Antony Gollan, Mirjam Kühne, RIPE Chair (as guest), Niall O’Reilly, RIPE Vice Chair (as guest), Brian Nisbet, Leo Vegoda, Salam Yamout

Scribe: Kjerstin Burdiek

Summary: The TF discussed the updated version of the working draft. The group reviewed the wording to improve clarity and consistency. They considered how to lay out the process to ensure the CoC Team would have the necessary flexibility for conducting investigations, such as the ability to liaise with external parties as needed. The TF and the RIPE Chair Team, Mirjam and Niall, discussed whether the CoC Team or the Chair Team would be responsible for deciding on severe consequences in cases of serious CoC breaches. They also considered how either decision would affect the appeals process, in which the RIPE Chair was the final authority for assessing an appeal. The TF decided to consider this matter further. Finally, the TF addressed the training for the CoC Team, which Mirjam would work with the RIPE NCC to arrange. The TF also discussed the usefulness of an awareness campaign for the community to help explain the purpose of the CoC and what the CoC process was like. They decided that this would be a helpful initiative once they had published the process document and that they would begin developing it. 

1. Minutes

The minutes from the last meeting were approved without changes. 

2. Agenda

There were no changes to the agenda.

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.

- (Ongoing) TF to think about the appropriate level of process to allow further improvements to the CoC.

This action remained ongoing.

-Athina to review the language on appeals and propose an amendment if needed.

This was done. Athina said that she and Antony had made the language less legalistic, as the legal system for appeals was highly complex and so not a good example to imitate. The TF should instead just note that appeals could be filed for any aspect of a case and would then be subject to review by different members of the CoC Team.

-RIPE NCC to update the working draft so it makes consistent use of simple language. 

This was done, and Antony shared the updated draft with the TF. 

4. Wording

Antony shared his wording revisions. Per the previous meeting’s discussion, he had added a clause about the CoC applying to everyone equally. He asked for feedback on the wording for the CoC Team’s smaller investigation group and for the appropriate term to describe assessing reports. He and Athina had also added more detail about the process for report assessment. 

Brian said the TF should mention that the small investigation team could consult with external parties as needed. 

The group discussed whether to include the phrase “legal experts” in this description. They considered how to best clarify that legal consultation was optional for the CoC Team.

Niall said the text should acknowledge the authority of the investigation team’s judgment on how best to conduct the process. 

Leo said that if they did so, it should be stated early in the document. 

Brian said this addition was unnecessary because it was likely stated in a different document already. Additionally, the community had implicitly acknowledged this by accepting the Code of Conduct. 

Niall said that it was important to mention for guaranteeing the CoC Team would have flexibility and would not be bound to a set process.

Athina agreed that guaranteeing this flexibility was important. Each case would have different kinds of evidence and would require a slightly different process. 

Salam agreed with Brian that they should not explicitly state this. 

The group discussed the best wording for the section on report assessment, including using the word “decision” to describe the outcome of the CoC Team’s assessments.

Brian asked if Mirjam, as RIPE Chair, consented to the CoC Team carrying out severe consequences for violations without consulting the Chair first. 

Niall said the RIPE Chair must be informed, but there may be urgent cases where the CoC Team needed to enact the consequence first and then inform the Chair.

Mirjam said the RIPE Chair was ultimately responsible for the community and the meetings. Therefore, if at all possible, the CoC Team should inform the Chair before carrying out such a consequence. 

Leo said the TF needed to clarify who was ultimately responsible for enforcing a decision, either the CoC Team or the RIPE NCC. In the last meeting, the TF had decided the RIPE NCC was the entity enforcing the decision and that the NCC might decide on a different consequence than the TF had suggested. On the other hand, the RIPE Chair would be the entity handling appeals. The process was that the CoC investigation team handled the report, the full CoC Team handled initial appeals, and the RIPE Chair handled secondary appeals. If the RIPE Chair was involved earlier, it would interfere with the Chair’s role in the appeals process. 

Mirjam said the TF should make this process similar to other appeals processes in the community, such as the PDP process, and Leo’s description of the CoC process was indeed along these lines. She did still prefer that the RIPE Chair should be informed and that the CoC Team’s decisions should be termed “suggested consequences”. 

Brian noted that just as chairs in the community’s WGs had a great deal of authority, the RIPE Chair also had such authority. If there were an instance where a very serious consequence, like expulsion from a meeting, had to be given, the Chair should be informed. This was the case in other communities as well. There might not be an appeal, and if there were, then they could handle it per Leo’s process. If the Chair disagreed with the CoC Team’s decision during this appeal, that was a different issue to address. But if the CoC Team could act without the Chair’s consent, the community likely would not trust the CoC process. 

Niall gave the example of the summary authority of fencing referees and suggested the CoC investigation team should have similar authority. The TF should explicitly state if there were any consequences that only the RIPE Chair could give.

Brian agreed that the CoC Team should be able to act independently in most instances but should notify the authority for serious consequences.  

Salam said that the RIPE Chair could not be involved in the investigation process and also enforce consequences, so the Chair should instead serve as the final authority. The TF still needed to more firmly decide whether the CoC Team or Chair would take on the role of assigning consequences. Overall, the TF should address the principles of the CoC more and focus less on small details, as it would be better to keep the CoC simple and straightforward.

Leo agreed that further discussion was needed on this topic, as there was not yet consensus in the group. 

The group then discussed some grammatical changes to the section on decision-making. 

Leo suggested creating a diagram of the terms used in the document to clarify them for readers. 

5. Appeals Text

The TF addressed this item during the action discussion referring to appeals. 

6. Team and Community Training

Leo said that he and Antony had decided it might be useful to conduct a training explaining what the CoC process and purpose would be. He asked the TF for their opinions. 

Salam asked if he was referring to training for the CoC Team or an awareness campaign for the community about the CoC generally. The latter could address concerns people might have about the CoC. 

Mirjam said that she would be meeting with the RIPE NCC’s HR director about the CoC Team’s training in order to decide on appropriate training services. She was also in favour of an awareness campaign for the community. This could foster a useful dialogue about how the community felt about the CoC, and it would help community members understand how to make use of the CoC process when they needed it. 

Niall agreed that there should be a community awareness campaign to build understanding and support. For example, they could discuss the CoC during Plenary sessions at RIPE Meetings.

Brian also supported the community awareness campaign. The publication of the CoC process document would be one way to improve the community’s understanding, and the goal was to have a multi-pronged campaign that explained all parts of the CoC process and tied together the different documents. The PDP video was a good example to draw from for this.

The TF discussed the importance of this campaign in light of recent community discussions. 

7. Next Steps

There was no time for this item.

8. Appeals/Escalations

There was no time for this item.

9. AOB

There was no other business. 

10. Actions

-The RIPE NCC to revise the document’s wording and to make a corresponding diagram. 
-The RIPE NCC to plan an awareness campaign for the RIPE community that explains the purpose of the CoC and how to make use of it. 
-The TF and the RIPE Chair Team to determine whether the CoC Team or the RIPE Chair would be responsible for deciding on serious consequences for severe CoC breaches.