> On 14 Sep 2022, at 20:53, Vesna Manojlovic <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Many *women* leave tech industry because of abuse, or micro-aggressions.
> We are missing out on the contributions by persons of color, young people,
> "people with thin skin"...
With respect Vesna, these problems *cannot* possibly hope to be fixed with
RIPE's Code of Conduct. Or anyone else's CoC for that matter. The concerns you
raise are of course very real. However they are complex and have too many
structural/societal/cultural causes that are both out of scope and far beyond
RIPE's capabilities. For instance, the lack of women in the tech industry
probably originates from few women/girls following STEM subjects at school and
further education. So the tech sector starts from a bad bad place and
inevitably goes downhill from there. Sigh. And hey, both of us are persons of
colour too - as are the other ~7B people on this planet.
A better way for RIPE to make a difference here might be to require a more
diverse and representative presence across the board: presenters, PC & TF
membership, WG co-chairs, etc. That IMO would have more tangible results than
fine words and fancy processes around some CoC. Maybe you disagree. But that's
to be answered for both of us with an objective evidence-led approach rather
than going by gut feel or best guesses.
I am both surprised and very disappointed that you (or the TF?) seem to want to
the CoC to fix these deep-seated and complex problems. Which are for society in
general, not RIPE IMO.
The CoC is supposed to deal with bad behaviour* at RIPE meeting - no more, no
less. There is nothing in the existing or proposed new CoC's remit which deals
with the issues you mentioned. So I don't understand how or why they have
somehow become topics for the CoC or the various task forces to address. Please
explain.
If the new CoC's authors/supporters have other intentions or aspirations beyond
dealing with bad behaviour at RIPE meetings, IMO they need to be far more
transparent about those objectives. That would mean a radically different TF
charter and a far clearer problem statement is needed. And for bonus points,
the final output from the TF (or whatever) needs to show how their work fixes
that problem or problems.
* The correct word here is "behaviour", not "behaviours". Behaviour is a mass
noun which does not get pluralised. So is the word "aggression". Or is this
sort of language pedantry about to be classed as a CoC violation?
--
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your
subscription options, please visit:
https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ripe-list
