[coc-tf] Draft Minutes – CoC TF Twenty-Third Call

Dear TF members,

Here are the minutes from our last call.

Cheers

Kjerstin

***

31 March 16:30 (UTC+2)

Attendees: Antony Gollan, Leo Vegoda

Scribe: Kjerstin Burdiek

Summary: The TF reviewed the draft document and made small structural and wording changes. They discussed whether the CoC Team would report on individual or community patterns of behaviour and determined that it would share statistical data about community behaviours while maintaining private records of individual behaviours to inform its decision-making in investigations. The TF considered how the CoC Team would maintain these records. It was decided to split breaches into minor and major, with a 12-month period of holding records for the former and a 24-month period for the latter. Ongoing consequences, such as permanent bans, would necessitate keeping some records indefinitely. The TF decided to consult with Athina to ensure this plan was in accordance with laws about data protection. The TF also decided that the RIPE NCC should determine the database the CoC Team would use for its records. After reviewing the draft, the TF looked at the blog post Leo had drafted to announce the process document to the community. They discussed the questions they would ask the community for feedback on the authority of the CoC Team and the extent of record-keeping required. Finally, the TF considered the next steps. They decided to share the process document with the community in about a week and to then give the community three weeks to review it. They would also plan a BoF session at RIPE 84 to update the community on the feedback received and inform them about the CoC Team recruitment and training process.

1. Minutes

There were no changes to the minutes, with a hold on approval until more TF members were available to review them.

2. Agenda

There were no changes to the agenda.

3. Actions

- (Ongoing) TF to think about how the CoC Team and the WG Chairs would work together to manage discussions on mailing lists. Including tools, e.g. Mattermost channel

This action remained ongoing.

- (Ongoing) TF to think about the appropriate level of process to allow further improvements to the CoC.

This action remained ongoing.

-Athina to review the language on appeals and propose an amendment if needed.

Leo marked this action as complete.

-RIPE NCC to update the working draft so it makes consistent use of simple language. 

Leo marked this action as complete.

-Leo to write blog post about the published draft for the community to review and offer feedback on.

Leo marked this action as complete. He had sent the blog post to the RIPE Labs editor in preparation to publish it. 

Antony said he had reviewed the blog post and made some edits that the TF could discuss later in the call.

4. Draft Process Document

Antony shared the updated draft document.

The TF discussed wording changes in the section on how the CoC Team related to the RIPE community and in the section on the requirement to inform the RIPE Chair Team of decisions.

Antony said he had spoken to the RIPE Chair and confirmed that the CoC Team did not need to inform the Chair Team in all cases before enacting a decision, only in cases of serious breaches with heavier consequences.

Leo agreed this was a better approach to avoid excessive reporting.

Antony asked whether the CoC Team’s records should describe the patterns of behaviour of individuals or of the community as a whole.

Leo said the document referred to individual patterns of behaviour but that it would be important to identify community patterns of behaviour as well. The TF should note in the document that records of individual patterns of behaviour would only be kept by the CoC investigation team and would not be shared with the community. 

Antony shared the section referring to the RIPE NCC maintaining statistics about individual patterns of behaviour. He noted that the language there might lead readers to think the RIPE NCC would examine all of its data on an individual during report investigations, when in fact only report-related information would be consulted. 

Leo said the TF needed to define the different ways the CoC Team would use the data it collected. Statistics on community patterns of behaviour would be shared with the community. On the other hand, records of individual patterns of behaviour would be used only by the CoC Team to help them decide on appropriate consequences for breaches. 

The TF then discussed some wording and structural changes in this section and in the section about the legality of recording reports. 

Antony said they needed to reference specific laws when explaining how long the CoC Team could maintain records. In particular, it would be necessary to establish what the purpose of these records were to follow legal guidelines. This purpose could be that the CoC Team needed records for as long as it took to enforce consequences, which could be ongoing in the case of bans from meetings and mailing lists. 

Leo suggested splitting breaches into categories for minor and major, with records held for 12 months for the former and 24 months for the latter. The TF should get Athina’s thoughts on this as well.

Antony said the TF should add that the CoC Team could maintain longer records when consequences would exceed 24 months, as in the case of permanent bans. The TF still needed to determine what the CoC Team should do if the subject of a report requested the deletion of their personal data. 

Leo said this would be for the RIPE NCC, as the legal record holder, to determine. The RIPE NCC also needed to determine what database system the CoC Team would use.

Antony said the RIPE NCC already had a system in place that could be used for this.

5. Blog Post

Leo noted that his draft blog post summarised the process document. In addition, it placed some specific actions on the community while also inviting general feedback. The specific actions were asking the community to give their feedback about the extent of the authority of the CoC Team and the extent of the record-keeping required. There was also an implicit question about how much information would need to be disclosed. 

The TF discussed the best structure for the blog post and decided to consult with Athina on this, particularly in regard to the actions placed on the community.

6. Review Period

Leo suggested giving the community a three-week review period for the document ahead of RIPE 84. 

Antony asked if clear consensus would be required at the end of this period.

Leo said the TF would need to decide after the review period whether there was overall support for the process document or whether they would need to revise it. There would not be time before RIPE 84 to present a revised version, so they could just give an update at RIPE 84. 

The TF discussed how to present this update at RIPE 84, whether asking Mirjam to share some slides at the meeting or holding a BoF session. 

Antony said they should decide based on community feedback. If there was a lot of discussion about the document, it would merit a BoF session.

Leo said the hybrid nature of the RIPE Meeting would make adding an ad hoc BoF session difficult. 

Antony agreed but noted there was still space on the RIPE 84 agenda. 

Leo said he wanted to tell the community at RIPE 84 about the CoC Team’s recruitment process, which would be based on the arbiters’ recruitment process, and about the CoC Team training procedure.

Antony said that, in that case, a BoF session would make sense. The TF could discuss those items as well as add more content as needed. 

Leo said he would draft a proposal for a BoF to send to Antony and Athina. 

The TF discussed how to structure the BoF session. They decided that Athina could give a talk about the recruitment process and Antony could talk about the training. Then they would describe the CoC Team’s composition and duties and have a community discussion afterward. Antony would prepare the presentation materials.

7. Next Steps

Antony noted that the TF should publish the draft process document as soon as possible, even if the legal review was still in progress. 

Leo agreed that the TF should publish the process document by the end of the following week so the community would have three weeks to review it. The TF could also tell the community about the planned BoF session.

8. AOB

Antony said he would look into the consulting group Brian had mentioned last week for CoC Team training.

Leo said this would be good, as that group looked more community-focused and might be a better fit than the law firm Antony had originally found.

9. Actions

-Athina to review the draft in regard to record-keeping.
-Leo to draft a proposal for a BoF at RIPE 84.