[members-discuss] Board minutes regarding investigation

Hi Sander,


Yeah, maybe "neutral" isn't the best way to describe it. Let's say there's a spectrum that goes:


positive > neutral > negative but tolerable > intolerable/unacceptable (undermines values)


Where only the worst category would be actionable. For your "death by a thousand cuts principle", that could in certain cases be harassment that would be actionable (eg when repeatedly directed at the same person), and the CoC explicitly leaves room for this by specifying the list is non-exhaustive.


However, this is well into subjective territory. Some people have a natural communication style that's abrasive (it's been said about me). Someone may experience this as negative communication, while others may describe it as direct and therefore actually positive (I myself prefer to interpret it like this if possible).


Besides that, life in general isn't only positive, so to communicate effectively negative communication is a necessary tool in the toolbox. Negative doesn't equal bad.


So, we shouldn't want negative communication chilled by subjecting it to process just because it's negative. Personally I'd err on the side of not interfering in communication unless it's clearly malicious as the examples in the CoC.


Having said that, I don't actually know what communication by the board member you're referring to, so I don't mean to defend that specifically. Though, it seems the investigator came to the conclusion that it didn't rise to the intolerable/unacceptable level. But that doesn't mean it's positive in any way.

-- 
Regards,
   Terrence de Kat, PhD/MTh/BPsy
     Darkness Reigns (Holding) B.V.

Please quote relevant replies.

From: Sander Steffann <sander at steffann.nl>
Sent: Wednesday, 18 January 2023 15:38
To: Terrence de Kat
Cc: <members-discuss at ripe.net>; Christian Kaufmann
Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Board minutes regarding investigation

> Hi Terrence, 
>
> > So, there exists a (very wide) range of communication that doesn't align with the given "examples of positive behavior", nor with the given "examples [of behaviours that undermine our values]". Let's call this "neutral" communication. 
>
> Hmmm. I see your point. I feel it’s a given that behaviour that is totally opposite to "positive behaviour" is automatically “bad behaviour”, so I wouldn’t call that “neutral”. 
>
> My feeling is that there is a gap between “bad behaviour that warrants immediate consequences” and “bad behaviour that is just annoying by itself, but should warrant consequences if it becomes a pattern”. The death by a thousand cuts principle. The consequences for the victim are no less in the latter case, but it is much harder to determine which little cut was the one that crossed the line. 
>
> How to protect victims from both behaviours, sadly I do know know :( 
>
> Cheers, 
> Sander 
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20230118/3e347ccc/attachment.html>