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

Dear TF members,

Here are the minutes from our last call.

Cheers

Kjerstin

***

31 August 15:00 (UTC+2)

Attendees: Antony Gollan, Leo Vegoda

Scribe: Kjerstin Burdiek

Summary: The TF discussed the updated process and recruitment process documents and went over the feedback from the CoC consultant. They considered how to set the size of the Team and decided it would be best to have a minimum of five but no maximum, where community members outnumbered RIPE NCC staff. The assessment group would have at least one RIPE NCC staff member and at least two community members. The TF discussed whether the larger Team should review the assessment group’s decisions but decided against it. The TF also determined that the CoC Team could make decisions on its own and then inform the RIPE Chair rather than needing approval. Finally, the TF noted the legal questions that still needed to be answered regarding the shadow team and data retention. They planned to share these documents with other TF members for comments by 9 September. Once the legal questions were resolved, the TF would then share the documents with the community for a final review period before RIPE 85. At RIPE 85, the TF planned to focus on recruitment efforts for the CoC Team.

1. Minutes

Approval of last meeting’s minutes was deferred until next meeting.

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

Leo had discussed this with Mirjam, and they would put this topic on the agenda for the WG Chairs’ session at RIPE 85. 

Antony said Mirjam had also asked to repeat the CoC training with the WG Chairs. 

Leo said this would be good.

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

Leo said this was on hold so that the CoC Team could decide this rather than the TF.

Antony asked if he should add in the process document that the CoC Team would do a yearly review of the documents for possible improvements.

Leo said this would be fine as long as the wording was broad enough to include possible improvements to the overall process and the CoC itself.

-Leo to speak with the RIPE Chair Team to schedule a discussion with WG Chairs

Leo marked this action as complete.

-Athina to investigate data retention and potential court proceedings against the RIPE NCC and appeals.

This was on hold until Athina could be present.

-Athina to check what case data the shadow team could, or should, have access to

This was on hold until Athina could be present.

Leo said someone on the RIPE NCC’s Legal team needed to check this so the TF would know whether to include this in the process document. 

Antony suggested that the CoC Team could be bigger, and the shadow team could be formed from the Team members.

Leo said there might not be enough volunteers for a larger Team. The legal analysis for the shadow team still needed to be prepared just in case.

-Antony to investigate what is practical in terms of consultant support at RIPE 85 and what the RIPE NCC would be prepared to support

Antony said he had discussed this with the consultant and was working out their availability for RIPE 85. The consultant was at least able to be on call at the meeting and could possibly attend.

Leo said it would be ideal if the consultant could attend so they could have a better understanding of the RIPE community’s culture. 

Antony said cost-wise it would be best to have the consultant there for a couple of days rather than for the whole meeting.

-Antony to adjust calendar invites for new bi-weekly meetings

Leo marked this action as complete.

4. Data Retention

Leo put this item on hold until RIPE NCC Legal staff could be present.

5. Working Drafts

Leo said the TF should share these documents with the community before RIPE 85 so the TF could talk about recruitment at the meeting. They could do an office hour there for people who were interested to stop by for information. He asked Antony to put the updated drafts of the process documents on a webpage and send them to the other members of the CoC TF for comments by Friday, 9 September. He also asked him to approach the RIPE NCC’s Legal staff about the legal questions the TF needed answered before posting the documents.

Antony shared the process document and pointed out some wording he had updated. 

Leo said that he was concerned the CoC Team would not get a lot of volunteers. For this reason, he suggested not requiring the smaller assessment group to have a specific number of members and instead just saying there should be more community members than RIPE NCC staff in the group. 

Antony suggested saying one RIPE NCC staff member and at least two community members.

Leo said this was fine as a minimum.

Antony pointed out the updated timeline in the document stating it could take up to a week to form the assessment group to review a report.

Leo agreed with this timeline as Team members’ availability would vary during the year. 

Antony asked whether the rest of the CoC Team should also look at the assessment group’s report. He noted the Team already had a review process. 

Leo said this was not necessary because there needed to be Team members who could later conduct a review. 

Antony asked whether the CoC Team would make a decision and then inform the RIPE Chair or if the Team would need the Chair’s approval. He had discussed this with Mirjam, who said the former was fine as long as the Chair could dismiss a Team if its decisions were inappropriate.

Leo said this made sense so there were stricter lines between who was in charge of oversight in this process.

Antony agreed, as this empowered the Team more and would increase community trust in them. 

Leo said the updated text on data protection was easier to read and would be perfect as long as the Legal team signed off on it.

Antony said the process document was overall ready to share.

Leo agreed and said the TF should go ahead with sharing it for feedback.

Antony raised the fact people may take issues with anonymous reports, as they might want to know who reported them.

The TF discussed this and decided it would not likely be an issue.

Antony shared the updated recruitment process document. 

The TF considered whether to make a distinction between skills versus lived experience when considering the background of the CoC Team members and decided against it. They went over wording changes in the document.

Antony asked whether to put a minimum for the Team size and suggested at least five. 

Leo agreed and said the TF should not add a maximum, just that community members would outnumber RIPE NCC staff. 

Antony asked if the TF should specify what kinds of professional experience would qualify for the Team.

Leo said some experience with foreign legal systems would be useful.

Antony agreed but said it would not be necessary to state this. He asked how long the term limits should be.

Leo said one year would make it easier to get volunteers.

Antony said longer might be better considering the length and cost of training.

Leo said this would be a good question to ask the community. The Team needed to balance having an overlap between outgoing and incoming members while preventing burnout.

Antony noted that burnout might not become that big of an issue as there might not be many reports.

Leo said the social events at meetings would increase the risk of CoC violations.

Antony said there should be the same time period to select Team members from RIPE NCC staff and from the community.

Leo said this was fine as long as community members always had some Legal staff to support them. He noted that it was important to clarify the local host did not have access to reports.

The TF went over the section about CoC Team members not discussing reports publicly. Leo suggested some wording changes in this section to make it more general. 

Antony updated wording in the section about the initial appointment of the CoC Team. 

Leo said this section was also part of what the TF should ask the community about. Regarding the first appointments, these were more flexible, but the intent was that Mirjam could initially offer some people longer or shorter terms as needed so there would be overlap.

6. AOB

Antony said he could get these documents online soon.

Leo asked Antony to share them with the TF for feedback before Friday, 9 September. Then the TF could publish them for the community at the start of the following week. The TF should also consider what questions to ask the community about the documents. The final review period should end two weeks before RIPE 85 in October.

7. Actions

-RIPE NCC to mark up webpages for the updated process documents.
-Leo to draft a blog post and announcement for the community about the updated process documents.