From jordi.palet at consulintel.es Fri Nov 1 13:53:07 2019 From: jordi.palet at consulintel.es (JORDI PALET MARTINEZ) Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2019 13:53:07 +0100 Subject: [diversity] [address-policy-wg] cultural idioms in RIPE discussions In-Reply-To: References: <19E11F70-0B23-432C-A919-447AC5AE0C4B@ripe.net> <066D53ED-24F2-4637-AD05-8A20E4AB8558@consulintel.es> <691f6ba3-5636-d372-da67-95ee5f57ce77@foobar.org> <795669AE-248F-443D-942F-71A5F63E3AFE@consulintel.es> <34675410-F040-4A2B-A2A2-D6884D5EF5A1@rfc1035.com> Message-ID: Diversity? (in copy) ?El 1/11/19 13:50, "address-policy-wg en nombre de Brian Nisbet" escribi?: I'm sure it will shock absolutely nobody if I say that I think this conversation is very important. Maybe AP-WG isn't the best place, but I'm not sure where is? I think it is useful to all of us to realise that our cultural references are not everyone else's, because of language or country or age or one of many other things. We can no longer just assume a shared set of references and we should look to inform (and hopefully share the awesomeness that is Monthy Python, for instance) and expand. I mean, how long will it be before WG Chairs start to talk about yeeting proposals into or out of WGs? ? I'm not, for one second, suggesting people shouldn't use references, I use them all the time, but I am saying that those who use them should be understanding when others don't get them. Thanks, 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: address-policy-wg On Behalf > Of JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg > Sent: Friday 1 November 2019 12:38 > To: Jim Reid > Cc: RIPE Address Policy WG List > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] cultural idioms in RIPE discussions > > Hi Jim, > > Despite how many years I've been participating, I still have (sometimes) > difficulties, and often talking with other non-native English speakers they tell > me the same. We know that not everybody is happy to express that in a list. > > I'm not convinced "common-sense" is such simple thing! Otherwise, either > I'm really stupid, or I should have cached the reference in a more humoristic > way. > > I don't think we can compare our technical jargon with such kind of > references, especially because not everybody (as it is my case) follows > "Monty Python, Star Wars, Star Trek, H2G2, etc.". Precisely because I often > heard those references, I decided today, to ask for a clarification! I've missed > a lot of fun, I guess! > > I didn't respond to the first email because, sometimes, when a thread is > moving fast in the list, you just respond to the last email that you read. Not > sure if that's a broken way, but I do sometimes. > > Regards, > Jordi > @jordipalet > > > > ?El 1/11/19 13:27, "address-policy-wg en nombre de Jim Reid" policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net en nombre de jim at rfc1035.com> escribi?: > > > > > On 1 Nov 2019, at 11:14, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg > wrote: > > > > My point was also a general observation (not something against any > specific participant, just taking advantage of this specific example, as a > mention to "Spanish inquisition" and "routing police" could be interpreted in > between lines as something different, even if not intended). > > Jordi, your comment is a reasonable one. But it misses the point. In this > case, your common sense should have told you the earlier remark wasn't a > literal reference to the Spanish Inquisition. > > The RIPE/tech community habitually uses references to a variety of idioms > from popular culture in films, TV, books and songs. Using catchphrases from > Monty Python, Star Wars, Star Trek, H2G2, etc. are very common. That's > gone on for decades. These phrases might well confuse non-native English > speakers at first. Or (say) an English speaker who haven't seen Star Wars. > However people soon pick up these references, just like we all learn the > industry jargon -- route flapping, prefix filtering, trust anchors, ROA, PI > address space, etc -- that probably doesn't translate well into other > languages. That sort of understanding becomes almost automatic for those > who have been active in these communities for a while. > > To be honest Jordi, I'm surprised you said you were confused. Since you've > been coming to RIPE/IETF/ICANN meetings for longer than I can remember, > this couldn't possibly have been the first time you've come across a Monty > Python reference. > > And if you were confused, you could have said so at the time and asked > the original poster to explain. I think that's a far better way to handle things. > It's certainly far more productive than starting this meta-discussion or telling > others how they should express themselves. > > > > > > > > > ********************************************** > IPv4 is over > Are you ready for the new Internet ? > http://www.theipv6company.com > The IPv6 Company > > This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or > confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the > individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, > copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if > partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a > criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any > disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, > even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be > considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to > inform about this communication and delete it. > > > > ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it. From sasha at mxsasha.eu Fri Nov 22 18:03:17 2019 From: sasha at mxsasha.eu (Sasha Romijn) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2019 18:03:17 +0100 Subject: [diversity] [ripe-list] Towards a more inclusive community In-Reply-To: <6F1BBB0A-4274-4FB1-8C82-8973F15D2EBD@rfc1035.com> References: <61fe6c87-062d-f4c1-b8d7-0968d34899b6@efes.iucc.ac.il> <848DECEA-5E43-447B-986B-A262D25A9ADF@rfc1035.com> <6F1BBB0A-4274-4FB1-8C82-8973F15D2EBD@rfc1035.com> Message-ID: <8F75E852-62D3-49D9-A935-B0761FD226D8@mxsasha.eu> Hello Jim, On 21 Oct 2019, at 10:37, Jim Reid wrote: > The TF need to consider other options. A range of sanctions are possible. A range of resolutions (the proposed CoC does not use the term ?sanctions?) are already in the document. Perhaps it helps as well if I offer some context. From my personal experience being on several CoC teams, and seeing reports from other teams, over the last several years, I?d say that 80-90% of reports I?ve been involved with are resolved with what the draft calls a private reprimand. We contact the person, tell them that what happened is not acceptable and explain why. They understand, apologise, and don?t do it again (as far as we know). The reporter is almost always happy with that resolution as well, so the situation is resolved. I have dealt with reports where more serious resolutions were decided upon. One form is intentional escalation, where the person continues and escalates their behaviour intentionally. The other common form are reports which are so serious that a more serious resolution is needed. To share a few examples where a more serious action than a simple reprimand was taken: - Someone who was permanently denied participation after behaviour was addressed by a private reprimand, and they continued to escalate up to the point of making death threats to a CoC team member. - Someone who caused several separate incidents due to severely excessive alcohol use, was warned that any further incident would lead to permanently being denied participation to further conferences. That person improved their behaviour and is still an active member of that community. In fact, they were, and continue to be, very grateful that our team forced them to confront a serious drinking problem. - Someone who vandalised a poster with a hateful message calling for genocide on a particular demographic. I would have been strongly in favour of permanently denying participation. Unfortunately the person was never identified. I also can?t say for sure whether that would have been the team?s consensus, as we never progressed to that discussion. - Someone who made death threats against a conference organiser (which was more severe than the first example, as when both parties may be at the conference, the threat has much more credibility). - Someone who made repeated statements to the organisers that they were not planning to follow the CoC, but had not made any serious violations. The person was informed that the CoC was not optional, and that if they felt unable to follow the CoC, they would not be able to participate in the community. However, it was stressed that they were still entirely welcome in the future otherwise. The person indicated they were not interested in participating any further. I don?t know if the ratios in resolutions map to the RIPE community as well, as the other communities in which I?ve done this work had already made much more progress in diversity and inclusivity than the RIPE community. In this context, I continue to be surprised that the idea that someone may be, in theory, denied further participation, appears to be so controversial in this community. Does this community honestly believe that in the cases above, denying participation is excessive? And as Brian and I said in our RIPE79 session, doing nothing will also deny people participation - we?ll just be denying participation to their targets instead. Sasha From salamyamout at gmail.com Fri Nov 22 18:49:35 2019 From: salamyamout at gmail.com (Salam Yamout) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2019 20:49:35 +0300 Subject: [diversity] [ripe-list] Towards a more inclusive community In-Reply-To: <8F75E852-62D3-49D9-A935-B0761FD226D8@mxsasha.eu> References: <61fe6c87-062d-f4c1-b8d7-0968d34899b6@efes.iucc.ac.il> <848DECEA-5E43-447B-986B-A262D25A9ADF@rfc1035.com> <6F1BBB0A-4274-4FB1-8C82-8973F15D2EBD@rfc1035.com> <8F75E852-62D3-49D9-A935-B0761FD226D8@mxsasha.eu> Message-ID: I agree with Sasha On Fri, Nov 22, 2019, 20:03 Sasha Romijn wrote: > Hello Jim, > > On 21 Oct 2019, at 10:37, Jim Reid wrote: > > The TF need to consider other options. A range of sanctions are possible. > > A range of resolutions (the proposed CoC does not use the term > ?sanctions?) are already in the document. > > Perhaps it helps as well if I offer some context. From my personal > experience being on several CoC teams, and seeing reports from other teams, > over the last several years, I?d say that 80-90% of reports I?ve been > involved with are resolved with what the draft calls a private reprimand. > We contact the person, tell them that what happened is not acceptable and > explain why. They understand, apologise, and don?t do it again (as far as > we know). The reporter is almost always happy with that resolution as well, > so the situation is resolved. > > I have dealt with reports where more serious resolutions were decided > upon. One form is intentional escalation, where the person continues and > escalates their behaviour intentionally. The other common form are reports > which are so serious that a more serious resolution is needed. > > To share a few examples where a more serious action than a simple > reprimand was taken: > - Someone who was permanently denied participation after behaviour was > addressed by a private reprimand, and they continued to escalate up to the > point of making death threats to a CoC team member. > - Someone who caused several separate incidents due to severely excessive > alcohol use, was warned that any further incident would lead to permanently > being denied participation to further conferences. That person improved > their behaviour and is still an active member of that community. In fact, > they were, and continue to be, very grateful that our team forced them to > confront a serious drinking problem. > - Someone who vandalised a poster with a hateful message calling for > genocide on a particular demographic. I would have been strongly in favour > of permanently denying participation. Unfortunately the person was never > identified. I also can?t say for sure whether that would have been the > team?s consensus, as we never progressed to that discussion. > - Someone who made death threats against a conference organiser (which was > more severe than the first example, as when both parties may be at the > conference, the threat has much more credibility). > - Someone who made repeated statements to the organisers that they were > not planning to follow the CoC, but had not made any serious violations. > The person was informed that the CoC was not optional, and that if they > felt unable to follow the CoC, they would not be able to participate in the > community. However, it was stressed that they were still entirely welcome > in the future otherwise. The person indicated they were not interested in > participating any further. > > I don?t know if the ratios in resolutions map to the RIPE community as > well, as the other communities in which I?ve done this work had already > made much more progress in diversity and inclusivity than the RIPE > community. > > In this context, I continue to be surprised that the idea that someone may > be, in theory, denied further participation, appears to be so controversial > in this community. Does this community honestly believe that in the cases > above, denying participation is excessive? And as Brian and I said in our > RIPE79 session, doing nothing will also deny people participation - we?ll > just be denying participation to their targets instead. > > Sasha > > > > _______________________________________________ > diversity mailing list > diversity at ripe.net > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/diversity > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: