[ripe-list] [Fwd: Re: CoC and the PDP]

​Thanks Amanda for you feedback.

In case I wasn't clear in my previous message, I do support a CoC (and I believe even more is needed to make all feel at home and welcomed), so no need to convince me there.

As with the current draft, it is legally flawed and I would be very surprised if RIPE NCC legal would endorse it in it current form.

My issue with the current draft are similar to what Malcolm Hutty already mentioned, therefore it is not enough to "finessing and clarifying parts here and there" but the overall structure of the document needs to change. In it's current form it is merely an activists pamphlet, not fit as a legally binding document. The rights of the 'accused' are not worth any mention nor is there any case made for 'due process'. The document is biased towards the grievance side and clearly written with that mindset.


In order to come to a legally binding text, that does not put RIPE NCC in harms way (nor the volunteers of the CoC Team or any other volunteer for that matter), and takes into account the views of the RIPE Community I propose a twofold procedure: the community sets out what they feel needs to be in the CoC and RIPE NCC comes up with a (impartial) text proposal that also fulfils all the legal requirements.


Yes this might mean starting from scratch (but you already have a lot), it has a much better change of "finishing"  than the current flawed proposal (yes the community might adopt it as it feels it needs to do -something-, I just ask the community to do the -right thing-, in the end that might even speed things up ..).


(and yes I'm an LL.M)​-- 
IDGARA | Alex de Joode | +31651108221


On Sun, 20-10-2019 22h 56min, Amanda <agowland at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
Alex, 
> 
  
> 
While I'm happy to see that the CoC is receiving more input, perhaps you
 are not aware that this whole process has been going on for over a 
year, discussed transparently on the list with updates at the subsequent
 RIPE Meetings. The statistics on the process, edits, participation are 
in the slide deck that the TF presented on Thursday. 
> 
  
> 
The community HAS come up with a CoC, we've been working on it for 
awhile. We are not asking for the entire thing to be scrapped - that 
would be a huge setback to the community - and I think it's becoming 
more evident that we need a strong mechanism in place to protect people 
*now*. 
> 
  
> 
Did you watch the TF update at RIPE 78? Did you see the statistic about 
how many people reported being harassed - 38% - that's almost 4 in 10 
people. A handful of people have been brave enough to come forward with 
their stories - which is absolutely terrifying to do, I may add - but 
then think about how many people haven't come forward. 
> 
  
> 
The CoC is not set in stone. We have repeatedly said this - this is new 
for the community and it is likely that we will discover that some 
things need to be tweaked. 
> 
  
> 
The last version of the document was already heavily reviewed by RIPE 
NCC Legal (see my previous messages on the diversity TF for that) - but 
there was confusion on the process because this document is different 
than anything that's come before and so we sought clarity from Hans 
Petter before moving forward. 
> 
  
> 
You are essentially making suggestions for things that we have already been doing. 
> 
  
> 
I believe - and many others have already voiced this - that there is 
strong support for this CoC. Sure, finessing and clarifying parts here 
and there, but I strongly disagree with your suggestions below. 
> 
  
> 
Amanda 
> 
  
> 
On 20/10/2019 22:31, Alex de Joode wrote:
> 


> 

> 
  

> 
-- 
IDGARA | Alex de Joode | +31651108221


> 
  
Subject: Re: [ripe-list] CoC and the PDP
> From: Alex de Joode <adejoode at idgara.nl>
> Date: Sun, 20-10-2019 22h 29min
> To: Erik Bais <ebais at a2b-internet.com>
> Cc: Leslie <geekgirl at gmail.com>, "Sascha Luck [ml]" <lists-ripe at c4inet.net>, RIPE List <ripe-list at ripe.net>
> 
> 
On Sun, 20-10-2019 19h 05min, Erik Bais <ebais at a2b-internet.com> wrote:
> > 
Hi,
> 
> I've been in the RIPE community and in the Dutch NOG community for quite a long time ... 
> [..]
> On the topic back to the CoC ... I understand the requirement and urge us to proceed with clear version to move forwards. 
> 
> One
 of the items I would like to address is that we have in our community 
quite some people that may be on the autism spectrum or on the edge of 
it .. 
> They might have some issues with deciding on what is socially 
acceptable or what the consequences are of certain text in the CoC .. 
> They might not be able to decide, based on the text what is acceptable behaviour .. but not on a predatory way .. 
> 
> I
 would strongly suggest that we try to include them as much in these 
discussions and perhaps even better, ask some if they would be willing 
to proof read the document and provide feedback on what they think based
 on the CoC.  
> 
> If their reaction is going to be, I don’t 
understand the consequences of the document and I will just not give a 
hand or speak to someone when I'm at the RIPE meeting, or not come at 
all, we may need to look at the wording.  
> 
> On the topic of this 
should go through the PDP ? ... I think that the RIPE NCC should have a 
strong CoC ( that should also include the trainings and member lunches 
btw, not only the meetings.. )
> The community can provide input, but 
as the official organiser, the NCC MUST (in my opinion) take a legal 
liability point here and draw the line of what is acceptable behaviour 
.. 
> 
> I think the NCC MUST take a lead here, with the input from 
the community and have the final say here and implement the new CoC 
asap. 
> 
> Regards,
> Erik Bais 
> 

I
 know from stories of (former) co-workers who attended the same event(s)
 as I did, they did not feel comfortable and left the venue early. (me 
wondering where they were). This makes they were not particularly 
thrilled to join the next venue. So this issue is real issue, and it 
needs resolving.

Question is, how do we solve it, or better how do we approach this as a problem.

A
 good Code of Conduct clearly spells out what behaviour is 
(un)acceptable, and also gives clear guidelines on how to report a 
(percieved) incident. The current CoC lacks this. It's reads more as an 
activist pamphlet and an instruction guide to the "enforcement team". It
 also totally fails to protect the rights of the 'accused' (yes they 
have rights) and does not at all provide for 'due process'.

Given
 the a-typical nature of tech conferences with, as Erik already pointed 
out, an over-representation of people who boarder in the spectrum, I 
feel only a CoC will not do.


Therefor I suggest the following:

 * The community should come up with a specification for a CoC (what needs to be in it)
 * RIPE NCC come up with a text
 * The
 community and RIPE NCC come up with mitigating actions (akin to 
'security by design'), are there ways to organise RIPE meeting this 
abuse/behaviour cannot happen.
 * Maybe investigate into introducing an 'Ombudsman'-like function.
-- 
IDGARA | Alex de Joode | +31651108221
















-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ripe-list/attachments/20191021/6936a8ee/attachment.html>