[members-discuss] Board minutes regarding investigation

Hi Kurtis,

>  I have to admit that I am a bit uneasy about this discussion. First of all, I have no idea who the board member is or what the actual communication is, but there is inference in the thread that others do.  Perhaps I have missed something but I personally would prefer to either discuss the policy, or actual evidence. So let’s assume we are talking about the policy of the CoC and to what extent it is “enough”.

+1

> The problem with a policy that talks about positive behaviours and the assumption that everything else is therefor negative is that you cannot completely enumerate all positive behaviour just as you cannot enumerate all negative. At the end there is a balance and a subjective judgement. The policy should act as guideline that sets expectations, not as an exhaustive list. There has been an investigation and a conclusion. Anyone might agree or disagree with the conclusion but in this case at least I don’t know enough to understand if this is due the policy being inadequate or just that the inquiry on balance found there was no breach.  

It turns out that this case was evaluated against the RIPE NCC Code of Conduct, not the RIPE Code of Conduct. Ondrej has shared the link where it can be found, and it has very different definitions about what is acceptable behaviour. I don’t think there is any point in now reevaluating the RIPE CoC as that wasn’t even involved.

> I agree with Terrence that there is a sliding scale and that has to be judged, and negative feedback / communication is an important part of forming policy. Watch a parliamentary debate in any country and there is consistently negative communication, often between the same persons, for years. That is not harassment or death by a thousand cuts. There is a threshold for when it can become that though.

Agreed. Black and white rules will make things worse, not better. Context can be more important than the actual words being spoken.

The difference between debate in parliament and a conflict inside the RIPE NCC is the potential for power imbalance. I therefore think that this has to be specifically solved by the board for that context. I am personally frustrated about the outcome of the investigation, but it is what it is. We can’t change the rules afterwards, but I think there is value in showing the board what we as members expect for the future.

Cheers!
Sander