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 <[email protected]> *Date:* Sun, 20-10-2019 22h 29min *To:* Erik Bais <[email protected]> *Cc:* Leslie <[email protected]>, "Sascha Luck [ml]" <[email protected]>, RIPE List <[email protected]> On Sun, 20-10-2019 19h 05min, Erik Bais <[email protected]> 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: 1. The community should come up with a specification for a CoC (what needs to be in it) 2. RIPE NCC come up with a text 3. 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. 4. Maybe investigate into introducing an 'Ombudsman'-like function. -- IDGARA | Alex de Joode | +31651108221
