[coc-tf] Draft Minutes – CoC TF Twentieth Call

Dear TF members,

Here are the minutes from our last call.

Cheers

Kjerstin

***

Draft Minutes – CoC TF Twentieth Call

14 January 15:30 (UTC+1)

Attendees: Denesh Bhabuta, Antony Gollan, Brian Nisbet, Leo Vegoda

Scribe: Kjerstin Burdiek

Summary: The CoC TF discussed the updated working draft that Antony had prepared based on comments from the last meeting. They decided that the document should not go into too much detail describing possible CoC breaches and removed a section on this. The TF also added more specific steps for how the CoC Team would go about implementing its decisions. This included noting that the Team would notify high-level RIPE and RIPE NCC members about decisions involving serious consequences. However, the CoC Team would mainly rely on the RIPE NCC employee already acting as liaison to be responsible for advice and notification. The TF approved sections Antony had added about loss of office and appeals, pending Athina’s approval from a legal standpoint. The TF also decided to add a note at the beginning of the document stating that the CoC would be applied to all members of the community equally. This was necessary in order to make clear that community leaders such as WG Chairs were also subject to the CoC and any decisions the CoC Team made. The TF considered whether to describe the investigation process in more detail but decided to reference external best practises as the guideline for investigations so that these practises could be updated as needed without requiring changes to the document. The TF also discussed whether the RIPE NCC would need its own separate CoC process since the RIPE CoC Team could not serve at all RIPE NCC meetings as well. This was set as an action for the RIPE NCC to determine. Finally, the TF resolved to determine the next steps for sharing the document now that it was almost complete. 

1. Minutes

The minutes from the last meeting were approved, with one change from Leo to note in the list of attendees that Niall O’Reilly was a non-member of the TF who was invited to attend.

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. 

-The RIPE NCC to determine what changes were needed in the working draft and to supply any other relevant community documents, such as WG chair descriptions.

Antony said this was done.

4. Working Draft

Antony shared the working draft that he had prepared for the TF. 

Brian said that one suggestion for the document, to use a different word than “investigate”, would require a lot of changes to the draft as that word was used frequently.

Antony agreed and said this could be addressed in a later review of the document. He asked what word the TF preferred to describe case outcomes.

Leo said it was best to use the most straightforward word, which was “decision”.

Antony agreed. He asked for feedback on his description of the CoC Team deciding that a reporter had misread a situation.

Brian said the sentiment of the section was good, but the wording could be improved.

Antony agreed that the wording was not clear enough.

Leo clarified that this section referred to the difficulty of accurately analysing situations where there were a lot of different activities happening at once, such as at a conference centre or in a shared office.

Brian said if someone misread a situation involving non-RIPE members at a conference centre, it was not an issue for the CoC Team to handle. He questioned why it was necessary to call out this possible decision specifically, as there were many other examples of situations that the CoC Team could decide were not breaches. The wording here could therefore be perceived as hostile.

Leo agreed and suggested cutting this from the draft.

Antony removed it. He asked whether the TF should include that the CoC Team could inform RIPE NCC employees or RIPE community leaders before enforcing a decision but was still ultimately responsible for deciding on and taking appropriate action.

Brian said he was confused because he thought the CoC Team was not responsible for enforcing the consequences, but rather it was RIPE NCC leadership or the RIPE Chair Team who would do so based on the CoC Team’s decision.

Antony said he thought this belonged in a different section focusing on the CoC Team making its decision. 

Brian said the TF needed to decide which section would outline how the CoC Team decided if a breach occurred, and if so, what the appropriate response would be. The latter should possibly be a separate section.

Leo said this should indeed be a separate section. There should also be another section about how the CoC Team notifed people, such as relevant RIPE NCC employees, about the decisions they had made.

Brian said this made sense. He noted that in his experience, executives sometimes gave different consequences to violators than CoC Teams had recommended, so it was important to clearly define this process.

Antony asked if he should add that the CoC Team could consult with other groups while coming to a decision.

Brian agreed the Team should be allowed to do so but that it should not be required.

Antony said this was already reflected in the document.

Brian said the document did not state clearly enough that the CoC Team would need to liaise with an executive before giving out serious consequences. 

Antony asked if he should then add that the CoC Team would notify the RIPE NCC and RIPE Chair of its decisions. 

Leo said the document already included that the CoC Team would have a RIPE NCC employee as a liaison. So while the CoC Team might sometimes need to reach out to other high-level members of RIPE or the RIPE NCC, ultimately it was the role of the RIPE NCC member on the CoC Team to offer advice and to inform the RIPE NCC of the Team’s decisions.

Antony asked if the TF should explicitly state that the RIPE NCC employee would have the role of notification.

Brian said they should add this, especially regarding severe consequences.

Leo said that they should state that the CoC Team would give the RIPE NCC its suggestion for what consequences the RIPE NCC should implement. This wording would clarify that the RIPE NCC could decide to respond differently.

Brian said this phrasing was fine for now.

Leo asked if the TF should use the word “suggestion” elsewhere in the text.

Antony suggested addressing the wording later as it would trigger changes throughout the whole document.

Brian agreed they should hold off on adjusting the wording until a further review.

Antony noted one change he had made to the document, that the CoC Team, rather than the RIPE NCC, could sometimes be the one implementing its consequences. He also explained a section he had added based on Athina’s comments in the last meeting, where she outlined the process for appeals about consequences.

Brian approved of the appeals section.

Leo said the appeals section was good, as long as Athina had approved it as well.

Antony noted that he had added a section about statistics per Leo’s suggestion. He also shared a section regarding loss of office based on the discussion at the last meeting.

Leo approved of the section.

Denesh asked for clarification on a previous section regarding how information would be archived. 

Antony said Athina would review this section from a legal standpoint.

Brian approved of the section about loss of office but said the TF would need to be very clear in their description of this process. WG Chairs needed to know they could still be subject to consequences, even if the TF maintained confidentiality as much as possible.

Leo suggested adding a note at the start of the document that the CoC would be applied equally to everyone in the community, including chairs. 

Antony said he liked this idea. 

Brian shared an example of a disclaimer from a convention he had attended in which it stated that the CoC applied to all staff and attendees.

Antony said he thought the TF had mentioned this in the CoC already, but they could add it at the top as well. He pointed out a suggestion in the document to add references to WG Chair documents, which he would do.

Leo said the document looked good, and the TF now needed to consider the next steps after the RIPE NCC finished the draft. The TF should send it to the RIPE Chair Team for review, and he asked if they should also share it with WG chairs or the RIPE ML.

Antony pointed out that the section about investigation still needed expansion.

Leo said he had not written that section as he thought RIPE NCC training would cover it. He asked if they should just put a note there that the CoC Team would be trained to follow certain principles and procedures.

Brian agreed the TF should not outline the investigation process because this would be developed later.

Leo said the TF should not need to update the document in order to update the process itself, so less detail was better. They should instead reference external standards the Team would follow and note that the procedure and document could change. 

Brian agreed with this, especially having an external pointer. 

Leo said they should explicitly state that they were using outside expertise for the procedure.

Antony asked if he should add this to the document. 

Brian suggested language about following relevant best practice. 

Leo approved of this wording.

Antony asked what they should do for immediately upcoming RIPE NCC meetings, as there was no CoC Team ready yet. 

Leo said they had touched on this and that the Team would be enforcing the CoC only for the RIPE community. The RIPE NCC would need to implement the CoC for its own meetings. Otherwise, it would be necessary to recruit a CoC Team for RIPE NCC meetings, which would be a burden on the community. 

Antony said would be complicated for certain regional meetings. 

Leo noted that this did place a burden on the RIPE NCC. However, it would be good to have more region-specific CoC enforcement. Additionally, the RIPE community did not have the capacity to implement the CoC for the RIPE NCC. 

Antony asked if they needed to maintain separate systems for the different types of meetings. 

Brian said they might not need different systems but rather different permissions, which would not be as complicated. This was due to the unique nature of the RIPE community, that it was both one community and many different ones combined. But it was important to maintain the CoC across different regions so that a violator did not go to other meetings without their behaviour being known.

Leo said the TF should ask the RIPE NCC for clarification on this, regarding both the technical and legal aspects. 

5. AOB

There was no other business. 

6. Actions

-Athina to review section on appeals in the working draft.
-The RIPE NCC to recommend whether there need to be separate CoC systems for the RIPE community and the RIPE NCC.
-Leo to liaise with the RIPE Chair Team to plan the next steps for the document.