[coc-tf] Draft Minutes - Code of Conduct TF: Tenth Call

Dear TF members,

Here is the third set of minutes.

Cheers

Ant

***

*Draft Minutes - Code of Conduct TF: Tenth Call *

5 March 2021, 16:30-17:30 (UTC+1)

*Present:* Denesh Bhabuta, Athina Fragkouli, Antony Gollan, Brian 
Nisbet, Leo Vegoda

*Summary:* The TF discussed whether it would have time to get its draft 
CoC in place before the upcoming RIPE 82 meeting (assuming the 
community’s feedback was positive). It agreed that it was best to wait 
for a future meeting, once the process and CoC Team was ready. The TF 
discussed the content of its update at RIPE 82, noting that it would not 
want to invite feedback on the updated CoC if it had already been agreed 
by then. The process elements it thought they would want feedback on 
included how the WG Chairs and the RIPE CoC Team would work together, 
how the CoC could be updated in the future, and a framework for the CoC 
Team to report back to the community.

*1. Minutes*

Leo said they could approve these on the next call.

*2. Agenda*

Leo said he had added an agenda item to discuss the upcoming RIPE 82 
meeting.

There were no further changes.

*3. Actions*

*- RIPE NCC to prepare draft CoC for publication*

Leo said their draft had been sent to the list and they were now 
receiving feedback.

*- Leo to check with RIPE Chair Team to see if they are willing to 
accept anonymous feedback*

Leo said they had done this and updated the relevant text in their 
announcement.

*4. Timeline*

Leo said it would obviously depend on the community’s feedback, but he 
was wondering if it would be possible to have their CoC in place for 
RIPE 82. He asked if the RIPE NCC could walk them through what was 
involved.

Antony said he’d checked with Martina and all that was needed was an 
update to the RIPE Meeting terms on ripe.net and the RIPE CoC on the 
RIPE Meeting website. This was very straightforward and could be done 
almost immediately. That was assuming there were no legal complications.

Athina said the existing CoC was not part of the terms and conditions; 
this was partly because the current terms were stronger than the CoC. 
For example, the RIPE NCC already had the right to remove attendees from 
the meeting. If they had a new CoC, they would have to review the terms 
to ensure they were compatible.

Antony asked if this might be a case of simply adding a line that 
attendees agreed to adhere to the CoC.

Athina agreed.

Brian said he would like to see that, and he assumed the RIPE NCC could 
change its terms and conditions relatively quickly. His concern was if 
their draft brought in elements of process that they were not yet ready 
to deal with. For example, their current draft said that processes and 
the CoC Team were covered in separate documents that were not yet ready.

Athina said they could have the CoC for the upcoming meeting as 
something that didn’t have any teeth. The teeth would be in the existing 
provisions of the meeting terms and conditions.

Denesh asked if they would have enough time from when registration opened.

Antony said he had checked that – if they allowed one month for 
community comments on the draft, that would leave one week for 
implementation. Martina had said that was plenty of time, given there 
wasn’t much needed.

Antony said that as they already had a RIPE CoC, he was wondering if 
they really needed to touch the terms and conditions at all. Perhaps 
they could simply swap the existing CoC for their updated one (once 
accepted). They could then make changes to the meeting terms ahead of a 
future meeting once they had the other elements ready.

Athina said what they had at the moment was a very short CoC and a 
review team (Trusted Contacts). If they updated this, did it mean the 
Trusted Contacts were responsible for handling complaints in the context 
of the new CoC? If so, perhaps it was better to wait until they had the 
new system in place.

Denesh agreed with Athina.

Brian said he was torn – on the one hand, this had already taken much 
longer than he would’ve liked. However, he also didn’t want to stumble 
at the final hurdle. He didn’t want to get this into place and then have 
people point out that they had no way to process reports and make it 
work. The whole point of the process was to make people feel safe to 
attend RIPE Meetings, and he didn’t want the Trusted Contacts to be 
confronted with a much bigger document. He thought it was more important 
to get this right for their next physical meeting, and to be proactive 
about telling people that this was what they were trying to do here.

*5. RIPE 82*

Leo said it would be good to get clear on what they wanted from the RIPE 
community at RIPE 82, and what they wanted to say. There was both a 
communication and a listening component to this. They also needed to 
think about how much time to allow. If they wanted a discussion, they 
would need a meaningful amount of time for this.

Denesh thought at RIPE 82, they should focus on what the RIPE CoC was 
going to be. They wouldn’t be able to ask for feedback, as the comment 
period would already be finished by then. So they would need to focus on 
saying that this was the CoC that would be coming into place, and they 
would now be working on the process document.

Antony said it might be difficult to fill an entire plenary slot with 
that. He wondered if it would be better to do a lightning talk, and then 
have a wider discussion about how they were approaching processes in a BoF.

Denesh suggested that they do something more like a Brian and Sasha did 
in Rotterdam.

Brian said he agreed with Denesh – they didn’t want to say that this was 
their proposed CoC. That should be done by RIPE 82 (assuming everything 
went well). They could say that this was the CoC, encourage everyone to 
read it, and hopefully they would have published the other process 
documents and could ask for feedback on these. It was important to allow 
people to give feedback, but they shouldn’t reopen discussion on the CoC 
itself.

Denesh said he was thinking in terms of a quick summary of where they 
were at, and what they were looking for.

Athina said they might have some specific questions by the RIPE Meeting 
and could get some answers there.

Leo said one thing Salam had talked about on a previous call was how 
they applied the CoC to WG mailing lists. This might be something the 
community could give input on – whether this was handled exclusively by 
the CoC Team, or if they thought the WG Chair should take the lead here. 
He asked if there were other questions people could think of and if this 
might affect how they would work – for example whether they should work 
on the process ahead of the CoC Team document.

Athina said more questions would probably emerge as they worked on the 
documents.

Brian said the WG chairs were a key part of the conversation. However, 
they were not the rulers of their WGs – the community was – and so the 
chairs had to be guided by that. They should be able to ask the 
community those kinds of questions without having to seek the full 
agreement of the WG chairs.

Leo said he definitely didn’t think they should be asking for permission 
to ask questions.

Brian agreed but said there might be some who thought the chairs should 
be asking their WGs for input. But it was important to be clear that 
they were asking the RIPE plenary, which was the correct way to do it.

Leo said sharing something that had been properly considered was 
important. They would only have so much time, so it would be good to 
share their question along with their thinking/rationale. The community 
could then suggest things they might not have considered.

Leo said he was hearing that they should be thinking of the process 
element ahead of the composition of the CoC Team. And they were thinking 
of process elements especially in terms of WG mailing lists, and they 
might need an element about updating the CoC itself. It seemed that the 
process they were currently in was quite heavy. Expecting the community 
to go through the same TF process for future updates might be a bit 
much; they might need a timelier method for future updates.

Brian agreed. He thought that once they had a CoC Team, that group would 
likely be the kind of people that cared about the CoC and would have 
ideas for improvements. They would also likely encounter issues where 
things needed to change based on experience.

Leo said that to some extent, if they were going to use input from the 
CoC Team, they would need some kind of reporting framework. They would 
need to ensure there was a solid factual basis for improvements. He also 
thought this would need some attention from Athina, to ensure they 
handled this information sensitively.

Leo summarised and said he had noted that at RIPE 82 they would be 
telling people that this was basically the new RIPE CoC and they were 
now working on the implementation. They were now interested in hearing 
from the community how it should be implemented and had specific 
questions that they needed feedback on. These included: 1) how the WG 
chairs work with the RIPE CoC Team to ensure mailing list discussion is 
appropriate, 2) how to update the CoC in light of the CoC Team’s 
experience, on the basis of 3) a transparent reporting framework that 
has undergone the appropriate legal review.

Leo said these were three agenda items for upcoming meetings that would 
need a lot of thought. The reporting framework would need some input 
from the RIPE NCC on tools and legal aspects. He didn’t know how much 
time and effort that would take, it would require Athina and Antony to 
check internally and come back with a timeframe for a proposal. All of 
them would need to think of the other two items.

Antony asked if there would need to be some degree of separation when it 
came to the CoC Team proposing changes to the CoC.

Brian said he didn’t think the CoC Team should be able to make changes 
unilaterally with no room for comment – that certainly wasn’t a very 
“RIPE” approach. But he did want them to be engaged and interested in 
making changes to the CoC.

Leo said he imagined those proposals would need to be reviewed, 
discussed and approved by the RIPE community. But that process also 
shouldn’t be so complicated and make it too difficult to reach a 
consensus that important changes were held back.

Brian clarified that the CoC Team shouldn’t be in any privileged 
position; they should essentially be like regular community members in 
this process. But he thought they would likely be the type of people who 
were engaged and interested in improving the CoC.

Antony asked if they could think about this in connection with any 
reporting requirements the group might have. So, for example, if the CoC 
Team reported back every two RIPE Meetings (or whatever) on how 
implementing the CoC was working – they could combine this with 
highlighting any issues with the CoC itself. The community could then 
run with this.

Leo asked if he was thinking in terms of sharing PDP experience.

Antony said what had made him think of that was something he’d seen 
relating to their yearly transparency report where they shared the 
number of LEA requests they had received. He imagined if there was an 
expectation that the CoC Team would report back on a periodic basis, 
then you already had a defined space (and an associated habit) where 
they could also share any issues relating to the CoC. This might avoid 
the CoC Team having to reinvent the wheel in terms of considering how to 
raise a potential change with the community.

Athina said there was an analogy with the RIPE NCC’s Arbiters Panel. At 
every RIPE Meeting they had a meeting with themselves where they shared 
experiences, and every year they had a larger meeting where they asked 
for legal advice and came up with suggestions for improvements to the 
process. Of course, in the Articles of Association, this process was 
quite defined. The Executive Board then decided if the proposed changes 
should be implemented and this was brought to the RIPE NCC General 
Meeting for a vote. She thought they could come up with some kind of 
structure that was similar.

Leo said they didn’t need to come to a conclusion on this call.

*6. AOB *

Denesh said he wanted to raise one procedural point: if any TF members 
responded to feedback on the mailing list, they should consider that 
this might be seen as speaking on behalf of the entire TF. They should 
therefore make it clear that any comments were made on an individual 
basis. Any responses on behalf of the TF should be agreed with the rest 
of the group first.

Leo also said that if they wanted to respond early in the discussion 
period, it might seem like they were trying to shut down discussion. If 
they wanted to respond, they might consider doing so off-list, to avoid 
creating this impression.

Denesh asked if that meant they should try to refrain from responding on 
the list.

Leo said they should act as individuals based on what they thought was 
best. But it was just something they should be aware of – in terms of 
how others might interpret this.

Denesh also noted that a comment on the list made him think of a common 
notion that people often shared – which he thought of as “those were 
different times.” The idea was that things hadn’t been such a problem in 
the past because “those were different times.” But that was largely 
because back then, people hadn’t raised the issue or come forward. He 
thought they should think of a response to this point when it was 
raised, not necessarily something combative, but just to note that 
people now thought these problems needed to be addressed.

Athina noted that the RIPE NCC Executive Board had asked the Executive 
Board Elections Task Force to act as the CoC Team for the upcoming 
elections. Many of the TF members had agreed and this would be announced 
soon. This meant they had a CoC and CoC Team for this that was totally 
independent from the CoC TF’s work.

Leo asked if this was something they should mention in their RIPE 82 
update.

Athina said the RIPE NCC would be publishing information about this 
ahead of the GM, so there was no need.

Brian said he didn’t think this was something they needed to comment on. 
He thought they should keep the two processes as separate as possible.

Antony asked if he should let any emails sent to the TF mailing list 
through moderation or if he should hold these in future.

Leo said the list was publicly archived and they had communicated this. 
He preferred they err on the side of letting things through rather than 
stopping them.

*7. Actions*

*Action: RIPE NCC to review reporting requirements to inform a process 
of improvements to the CoC (likely tooling and legal analysis). **
**
**Action: TF to think about how the CoC Team and the WG Chairs would 
work together to manage discussions on mailing lists. **
**
**Action: TF to think about the appropriate level of process to allow 
further improvements to the CoC. **
**
**Action: TF to think about their schedules between April/June and 
consider changing call times. This can be coordinated via the ML to 
allow a new schedule before April. **
*
End of call.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/coc-tf/attachments/20210318/5a287418/attachment-0001.html>