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

Dear TF members,

Here are the minutes from our last call.

Cheers

Kjerstin

***

23 June 16:30 (UTC+2)

Attendees: Antony Gollan, Brian Nisbet, Leo Vegoda

Scribe: Kjerstin Burdiek

Summary: The TF discussed what changes were still needed in the text of the CoC process document. The wording in the section on data retention needed to be clarified, and the group also considered how much detail to include in the section on statistical reporting. The TF decided it was not necessary to state the exact kinds of reports the CoC Team would produce so long as the document stated the Team was required to do some reporting. The group also planned to add an appendix to the document explaining how it was produced. Next, Leo said the TF should prepare a document outlining the recruitment process, which would focus on how potential Team members could apply and how their applications would be reviewed. The group also considered whether to include Team members’ roles and responsibilities in this document or whether that should be kept separate so it could be updated as needed. The TF decided it did not need to split this into two documents yet. The group also planned how to begin recruitment for the first CoC Team and felt it was time to start considering possible candidates. One question for the group to think over until the next meeting was whether there should be a local liaison on the Team to help with cultural differences. Finally, the group decided to have the CoC consultant Antony was in contact with review both the process and draft recruitment process documents.

1. Minutes

Approval of the minutes was deferred until next meeting. 

On the list, Brian had requested a change in the minutes to update the sentence “He brought up the example of the PC, where candidates sometimes joined with the intention of only staying for one or two meetings” to “He brought up the example of the PC, where some members joined at when the PC was first created, with the intention of only staying for one or two meetings.”

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.

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

This action remained on hold.

-Leo to gather templates for how WG Chairs could remind WG members about the CoC.

Leo said he had shared a draft of the templates with Antony and Kjerstin so they could make adjustments. The TF should have this ready before RIPE 85, and ideally as soon as possible. 

Brian offered to assist with this.

Antony said he would share the draft to the list for comments.

-The RIPE NCC to clarify the section about data retention in the process document.

Leo marked this action as ongoing.

Antony said he would continue to clarify this section and would consult with the RIPE NCC’s Legal department about it.

-Leo to draft a message for the list about the document’s revisions and asking for feedback.

Leo marked this action as complete. There were no comments yet, perhaps due to the summer holidays.

4. Text 

Leo said the TF should make the section on the CoC Team’s statistical reporting clearer, with more detail about what the Team would report on. However, it would be challenging to predict what sorts of trends would need reporting.

Brian said the TF could speak to the consultant about this or examine what other communities did reporting on. Another inspiration could be the RIPE NCC’s reporting, for example, on law enforcement interactions.

Antony said the TF might just need to state that the CoC Team would be required to produce statistical reports. 

Leo said the TF could indeed look to the RIPE NCC’s law enforcement and sanctions reports as examples to imitate. Regarding the distinction between major and minor breaches and how these were reported, the TF itself did not need to define these. The TF just needed to say that there would be such reporting.

The TF members agreed that this was all that was required.

Leo said the TF needed to write an appendix about how they had produced the document. He offered to draft it but asked if the RIPE NCC would prefer to. 

Antony said he could take this on. He asked how far back in the process this appendix should go.

Leo said Antony could use the information from the web page with the details about why, when and how this document was created. The TF also needed to better explain the legal rationale for the CoC Team’s data retention.

5. Recruitment

Leo said the TF needed to create a document about recruitment with two parts, which were how the initial CoC Team would be created and how the Team would handle recruitment and onboarding going forward. The latter was most important to focus on. He would draft an open call for volunteers with instructions for how to apply. Then these applications would go to the RIPE Chair to select candidates based on diversity and other needs. 

Antony noted that the Programme Committee (PC) had a document outlining the responsibilities of a committee member. He asked whether the CoC Team needed such a document for its members. 

Leo said that adding this into the process document would be too large a change. He suggested using a webpage instead to outline the members’ responsibilities. 

Antony asked whether this third process document should just be about recruitment or also about the Team and its roles and responsibilities.

Brian said they could have two documents but noted that the PC only had one for this information. The purpose of the document was to help applicants to the Team, so it did not need to be extremely detailed. He suggested the TF put the CoC Team’s duties into one document with the recruitment and then discuss with Mirjam if it should be split into two. 

Antony said the TF could decide later if this should be two documents but should include recruitment and expectations in this document. 

Brian emphasised that this could be one document, as the PC had done. 

Leo said the document describing the Team members’ roles was akin to a job vacancy announcement, so the TF should ensure this could be updated as needed. The process document would not be easily adaptable, so a webpage would be a more convenient way of conveying this information. 

Brian said he understood and that it would be fine for the TF to produce separate documents.

Antony said the webpage Leo described would be maintained by the RIPE NCC’s Communications team and could then be changed too easily if a CoC Team member demanded asked them to. 

Brian said this information should be in a RIPE Document so it could not just be changed at the RIPE NCC’s discretion.

Leo brought up the possible candidate pool for the CoC Team. To get the Team started, the TF should recruit people who might only serve briefly. He asked how the group should reach out to possible candidates.

Antony said reaching out to personal contacts would be most effective, but the TF could do an open call alongside this.

Brian asked what the steps should be as the TF initiated this process. 

Leo said the group should avoid publishing the documents and closing the TF before getting any volunteers for the CoC Team. The TF should instead seek out individuals for the first Team who would be active later on in trying to recruit more people for the CoC Team. 

Brian asked if the TF should start recruiting candidates now before the draft documents were published.

Leo said this might be necessary to give people plenty of time to consider joining. If the process were ready to present at RIPE 85, then potential applicants would be more likely to comment on the document and officially sign up.

Brian said the TF should come up with some potential applicants over the next few weeks that they could then approach. 

Leo said he would put an item in the next meeting’s agenda to discuss possible candidates.

Brian noted that there was a local host representative on the PC, which could help bridge cultural differences. The TF might want to consider this as well. 

Leo noted that at nog.fi, they had discussed their CoC and given an introduction to the local culture for the meeting. 

Antony said this was a good idea but that not all local hosts might want to participate.

Leo said the TF should perhaps leave this up to the RIPE NCC’s Events team.

6. AOB

Antony asked when the TF should have the consultant review the process document.

Brian said now would be good, given the small amount of feedback so far. 

Leo said the consultant should review the process document and a draft of the recruitment process document. He asked Antony to approach the consultant about this.

7. Actions

-The RIPE NCC to review templates for how WG Chairs could remind WG members about the CoC.
-The RIPE NCC to clarify the sections about data retention and statistical reporting in the process document.
-Leo to prepare a draft of the recruitment process document.
-All TF members to consider possible candidates to reach out to for the initial CoC Team and whether to have a liaison with local hosts.