[coc-tf] CoC Process and Next Steps

Thanks Leo and Brian for holding on the torch and for driving this work.
I was stricken by Covid, and although I had been vaccinated 3 times, it
still knocked me out for 10 days.

I am OK with the BOF and the change that Brian proposed.

I do not support the classification of breach into "minor" and "major".  A
breach is a breach, after investigation, the judges report states the facts
and recommends a punitive action (if needed).  The same offense can be
minor or major depending on how it is executed.  (example, even a murder
has different judgements and one can get out for self defense or get the
death penalty).  So let the investigation decide the level of the breach
and let us not categorise offenses with outcomes before investigating the
facts.

The RIPE chair and the RIPE NCC are notified before implementation.  This
is a good buffer to have.  Does this imply that they can interfere?  I am
for that, but just wanted to know if this is something that was discussed
and agreed upon, or whether this is left for interpretation.

Best
Salam

On Fri, Apr 1, 2022 at 4:26 PM Leo Vegoda <leo at vegoda.org> wrote:

> Hi Brian,
>
> On Fri, Apr 1, 2022 at 1:37 AM Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet at heanet.ie>
> wrote:
> >
> > Leo,
> >
> > Great stuff, thank you!
> >
> > The data protection piece is fair, albeit I'd love to expand that to 18
> and 36 months to guarantee it covering 3 meetings to more easily spot
> patterns, but Athina is the expert here.
>
> We didn't spend a long time discussing the specific periods. I suppose
> there are two questions:
>
> - What advantage do we get from retaining records for 50% longer?
> - How difficult would it be to change the record retention policy, if
> the Code of Conduct Team wanted to do so?
>
> > Under 4 we still say: "In all cases, the RIPE Chair Team and the RIPE
> NCC will be informed of a decision by the CoC Team before it is
> implemented." Is it intended to change that language to reflect only major
> (you said significant, but if we're using minor/major language elsewhere,
> I'm assuming significant = major) breaches will be informed prior to
> implementation?
>
> You are right. That needs to be adjusted before we publish the draft.
>
> > My biggest concern is that we now have to create broad classifications
> of what a minor or major breach is, which I'll admit I'd been hoping we
> could avoid.
>
> Can we not leave that to the Code of Conduct Team, when they are
> selected? We have given non-exhaustive examples in the lists. If we
> try to define major and minor we'll still need the Code of Conduct
> Team to apply their good sense when something different happens.
> Perhaps it is simplest for them to take account of each individual
> situation and set a category accordingly?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Leo
>
> --
> coc-tf mailing list
> coc-tf at ripe.net
> https://mailman.ripe.net/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/coc-tf/attachments/20220403/ad77d23f/attachment.html>