[diversity] On the RIPE community CoC
- Previous message (by thread): [diversity] On the RIPE community CoC
- Next message (by thread): [diversity] Doodle Poll for next meeting
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Brian Nisbet
brian.nisbet at heanet.ie
Tue Feb 19 10:44:29 CET 2019
Sasha, Thanks for all of this! I think there's much to discuss and it might be easier to do that via voice on our call in early March? I think there's a lot we just straight agree on, but the big complexities/discussion points, for me, are around the role (or lack thereof) of the WG Chairs and the RIPE Chair. I think there has to be some, but as you make clear, it isn't straightforward! So for me, I can respond (as can others!) to both your points and other things, or as I suggested, we can discuss them in a couple of weeks. Thanks again, Brian Brian Nisbet Service Operations Manager HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland +35316609040 brian.nisbet at heanet.ie www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270 > -----Original Message----- > From: diversity <diversity-bounces at ripe.net> On Behalf Of Sasha Romijn > Sent: Thursday 14 February 2019 10:33 > To: diversity at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [diversity] On the RIPE community CoC > > Hello all, > > On 11 Feb 2019, at 19:20, Hans Petter Holen <hph at oslo.net> wrote: > > I will have to appologise for my late reply from your escalation of the > matter. > > That is clearly not acceptable and I will work on ways to improve that. > > (If you did not get my response, I am happy to resend) > > Yes, I did get your response. But most importantly, I consider this a failure of > process, not of individuals involved. > > > On 12 Feb 2019, at 14:31, Mirjam Kuehne <mir at ripe.net> wrote: > > Just to clarify the point above: two of the trusted contacts are RIPE > > NCC staff members. The list moderation is set up such that only these > > people can see and moderate mails sent to the list. I am sorry if this > > is not clear from the moderation message you received. > > That is much less of a concern then. However, it’s not very inviting as a first > reply to a report. Considering the low number of people otherwise affected > by spam, perhaps it would make sense not to moderate it at all? > > > Regarding mails sent to WG chairs: Everyone who is subscribed to the > > mailing list of a specific WG can send mail to the WG chairs list of > > that WG without moderation. > > That’s peculiar, because I’m fairly sure I was subscribed at the time, and my > mails were still moderated. Still, people should also be able to report safely if > they’re not a member of the list, so this needs some kind of change. > > > On 12 Feb 2019, at 18:19, Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet at heanet.ie> wrote: > > I do know, not that it helps you or reduces the issues you and possibly > others have had with the process, that there have been some issues > reported that have worked through the system in a far "better" fashion. I say > this not to minimise your experience or the problems, rather to say that the > failure is not total across the board. However it does highlight that there is > far, far too high a risk of failure for a number of reasons, not limited to > individual reactions and a range of other points that you've raised. Again, this > is a point of note, nothing more. > > It’s good to hear that it has worked well in other cases :) > > > It feels wrong at this point to put the work of the template and the > communications with JangoCon back on you, but we do also want to find the > best material for the CoC. Perhaps the Write the Docs CoC might be a better > starting point at this time? Certainly I would be very happy to work on > adapting this with you or others, but there's no question it is already an > agreed action of the TF and we've flagged it to the PC and the WG Chairs. > > So, for DjangoCon Europe 2018, I was on the organising team, and > restructured much of the CoC. I now adopted most of that work into the new > Write the Docs CoC. The latter is probably a better starting point, because the > DjangoCon CoC is focused at supporting one particular event, during a > temporary time, with one single CoC team responsible for all reports. Write > the Docs is a community with a number of meetups run by local organisers, a > number of conferences where core team members are deeply involved, a > number of conferences where most work is done by local organisers, and a > number of online spaces. So, the WTD community is more similar to the RIPE > community, and therefore is a better starting point. > > > Importantly in this will be consequences for violations, something which is > clearly missing at present. > > Yes, specifying possible consequences is an essential part of a CoC. In the > WTD CoC response guide, we also provide some guideline on appropriate > responses (but never hard rules). > > > I think that we, as a TF, can ask the Trusted Contacts now and in the future > to prepare a report after each meeting, which would, at a suitable level of > obfuscation, given information on reports made. It's possible this can also > encompass reports made between meetings or based on other RIPE > community events or for a, that's something we can determine. > > Yes, these are generally called transparency reports, I co-authored this one > last year: > https://2018.djangocon.eu/news/coc-transparency/ > > As noted in incident #2 in that report, it is essential to prioritise anonymity > above detail, so in some cases the report remains very vague. But even then > it can still help, as it shows that we have been active, and makes visible what > kind of actions we’ve taken and the lessons learned. > > > The TF will also (and again, I don't think I'm deviating hugely from our > decisions in Amsterdam or more recent conversations) work with the WG > Chairs and the RIPE Chair to have CoC related text included in the WG Chairs > job description and work with the NCC to provide training for them in regards > to upholding the improved CoC. I think we need to look at how we can do > the same for the Programme Committee. > > Are the WG chairs actually the best people to handle reports? From what I’ve > seen in regards to WG chair selection and process, I’m not sure this is part of > the task they are chosen for. And incidents can occur outside of WG spaces - > I’m not sure where those would be handled in this model. > > Another concern is that some information sharing is required. If a person has > already received a reprimand for certain behaviour in one WG, and repeats > this in another WG, it is important to be aware of the previous incident so > that someone can’t keep claiming “I’m sorry, I didn’t know”. To share > incident information with all WG chairs would mean sharing it with 27 people, > and we haven’t even considered incidents outside WG spaces yet. It’s > absolutely vital that details of incidents are kept secret and known to as few > people as possible - having them known to 27 people is way too many. So > some other structure is required anyways to track repeat violators and > general trends, without sharing reports between all WG chairs. > > I also recommend against having the RIPE chair as the (only) escalation path > for CoC issues. > CoC processes should not depend on a single person, because: > - It makes it more likely that something will be forgotten or overlooked. > - The single person can become the target of a CoC-violating action, and > should be able to excuse themselves from further handling of that incident. > For example, a recent case where I handled communication for an incident > resulted in hateful messages being sent to me. At that point, I excused > myself from handling the report, and left it to other team members, both for > my own well-being, and because anything else could create the perception > of a conflict of interest. > - The single person can have a conflict of interest in handling a report, for > example a report being made by or about a close friend or close business > relation, and in that case someone needs to be able to excuse themselves. > - The CoC needs to account for the possibility a report being made about a > person who is usually involved in CoC handling. I’ve not really dealt with that > personally, but even if it never happens, there needs to be a process for it, if > only to help build trust in the CoC reporting process. > > Sasha > > > _______________________________________________ > diversity mailing list > diversity at ripe.net > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/diversity
- Previous message (by thread): [diversity] On the RIPE community CoC
- Next message (by thread): [diversity] Doodle Poll for next meeting
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]