[address-policy-wg] RIPE Code of Conduct and discussion on this list

Hi Leo and AP WG co-chairs,

On 11.01.2024 14:42, Leo Vegoda wrote:
> Earlier, Denis sent a message

I'd assume that you refer to one of these two most recent emails from 
Denis of the "[address-policy-wg] 2023-04 Review Phase (Add 
AGGREGATED-BY-LIR status for IPv4 PA assignments)" thread:

* Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2024 01:40:33 +0100
* Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2024 03:20:58 +0100

These two emails most certainly bear a quite robust style of writing. 
Also wrt. content they - taking Tore's emails also into account for a 
full picture - are heavily going in circles.

However, having just re-read them carefully again, I fail to see 
multiple ad-hominem attacks and/or "Aggressive communication" such as 
"Calling people offensive names" as you line out here:

> that contained multiple ad-hominem
> attacks on the proposers of 2023-04 (Add AGGREGATED-BY-LIR status for
> IPv4 PA assignments). This is in conflict with our Code of Conduct. We
> will not tolerate breaches of the Code of conduct.
> 
> As a reminder, our Code of Conduct urges us to "be open, considerate,
> and respectful." Further, "Aggressive communication" such as "Calling
> people offensive names" is not allowed.

Certainly, different people will come to different judgements in their 
respective assessments of third parties' communications styles - that is 
why would like to share mine: I truly believe that Denis' communication 
style is heavily "passionate" (thanks, Sebastian! ;-) but IMHO still 
fully within the boundaries set by the Code of Conduct.

Therefore...

> Denis has previously had a private warning. As this is his second
> breach in a discussion of this proposal, we will instruct the RIPE NCC
> to stop him from posting to the list for 30 days.

... I'd like to ask you as the AP WG co-chairs collective to reconsider 
your decision to temporarily revoke Denis' posting rights. Thank you!

> Also, as the discussion has derailed, we will extend the Review Phase
> by four weeks.

This makes all the sense to me. Thanks again!

> We encourage everyone to focus comments on the proposal
> and its potential impact. Do not comment on individuals, their
> characteristics, or motivations.

Strictly separating comments on the proposal and its potential impact 
from those of perceived motivations can be tricky at times - even more 
so as the proposals themselves bear their respective motivation. Or 
reasoning. Or whatever you want to call it.

Doubting the motivation of the proposal and instead assuming another one 
should IMHO still be considered as part of a fruitful discussion.

Yes, the line can get very thin very quickly.

But we're not - see above - yet there and across it, I believe.

All the best,

	-C.