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 <[email protected]> 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 <[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: * 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
