[diversity] [Ext] Re: *draft* CoC Team doc

Hi Evaggelos,

On 29/08/2019 23:03, Evaggelos Balaskas wrote:
> Will all due respect,
>
> a. I would like to make a remark:
>
> In my personal opinion, there is a sensitive matter in 'Report Resolutions'
> "- Requiring the violator to apologise either privately or publicly ..."
>
>      In some cases the reporter may be in a very difficult position if
> needed to face the violator (of even be in the same space) for the
> apologies due to emotional duress of the situation. Reading closely this
> phrase it is not very clear (at least to me) what is the format (how) of
> this requirement. I believe as the note clearly states here:
>
> "Note: It is up to the reporter if they will accept an apology from the
> violator"
Yes, 100% agree, a reporter will never be pushed to be present for an 
apology. If the violator would like to apologise face-to-face, the team 
should first consult with the reporter to see if this is something they 
want. I'll have a look at the text to see if I can make this more 
explicit somehow.
>      that perhaps it is not a requirement for both parties to be present,
> if the reporter does not feel safe (physical or emotional) it is up to
> the reporter to make a choice and then the team can handle the apology
> with their own discretion.
>
>
> To be honest, I may have not understand it 100% correct, so please
> forgive me if such the case.
>
>
>
> b. I would also want to make a suggestion:
>
>      Perhaps it is of value to run a simulate instance of violation (as a
> CoC training game) and try to handle the situation or even try to
> enforce CoC to identify areas of possible improvement. In a few cases
> I've noticed [in small conferences] that the lack of experience from the
> organizers, even with a CoC in hand, it was hard to handle such
> incidents. And some times aggression can escalate conflict instead of
> reduce it.
This is a really good idea. I think we should also ensure that when we 
communicate this document again, we make it clear that this is a *new* 
process and we will need to be mindful of feedback and tweak the process 
once its being used should something not be working as it should.

Many thanks,

Amanda
>
>
> Thank you,
>
>
>
> On 8/29/19 1:59 PM, Amanda Gowland wrote:
>> On 29/08/2019 12:43, Sasha Romijn wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Thanks for your work on the document, Amanda!
>>>
>>> Other than two points I left as a comment in the document, if I’m
>>> reading this right the RIPE chair will, on their own, select the
>>> members of the CoC team. How will the RIPE chair do this? What are
>>> the considerations that apply to this decision?
>> HPH is in the office tomorrow and this is one of the things I want to
>> talk to him about...he might have some input about the selection
>> process (and I will share that here).
>>
>> I, personally, don't feel *great* about the selection of the team
>> being down to one person either. But it also doesn't make sense to
>> have the RIPE NCC EB do it (as they do for the Arbiters Panel). Other
>> options could be:
>>
>> - Decision is made by vote by the community
>> - We have a "meta" decision making body that makes the decision(but
>> then we're going to need a whole process behind that selection process
>> too...)
>> - HPH gets input from the Diversity TF on the selection
>>
>>> I also don’t see any space for someone saying “hey, I don’t think
>>> this person should be on the CoC team, for <reason>” (in private and
>>> confidential). There are definitely people in this community who I
>>> would be very uncomfortable reporting anything to. In established CoC
>>> teams, there’s at least the option of checking whether there were any
>>> previous reports about new volunteers, but we don’t have any data
>>> like that.
>> You're right, we should have this in place in the process. We should
>> explicitly say that if there are any objections to a potential team
>> member, people can confidentially submit their concern...especially
>> considering that we don't have any formal way of checking to make sure
>> their behaviour hasn't been in violation in the past.
>>> I’m also wondering what we can do to attract a diverse group of
>>> volunteers. It would be a poor outcome to end up with a CoC team that
>>> has little diversity, and consists mainly of usual suspects of our
>>> community - I would definitely be more reluctant to report. I don’t
>>> immediately have ideas for that.
>> Share this concern too - we cannot have a homogenous team. I expect
>> that we may need to encourage people we think would be a good fit to
>> volunteer. I can also add something in the doc about this...that we
>> are aiming for a diverse team.
>>> Sasha
>>>
>>>> On 29 Aug 2019, at 10:26, Amanda Gowland <agowland at ripe.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Thanks Leo, saw them come in and they are great, thanks!
>>>>
>>>> Will work those in this morning.
>>>>
>>>> On 28/08/2019 18:10, Leo Vegoda wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> Amanda Gowland <agowland at ripe.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>>> Are we ready to:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> a) Share the draft CoC Team doc with the wider community so that
>>>>>> b) We can ask HPH to declare consensus + open the call for volunteers
>>>>> I have reviewed the updated text and made a couple of comments.
>>>>> Whether my suggestions are incorporated or not I think this
>>>>> document is good and ready to share more widely.
>>>>>
>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Leo Vegoda
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> diversity mailing list
>>>> diversity at ripe.net
>>>> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/diversity
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> diversity mailing list
>> diversity at ripe.net
>> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/diversity