[coc-tf] (no subject)

Hi Brian,

Thanks for sharing your feedback.

I agree that writing down the details would be hard to do. Should we
instead try to avoid the details but write down what we hope oversight
by the RIPE Chair and/or RIPE NCC MD would achieve?

The Code of Conduct document says: "The RIPE community expects all
participants to use good sense and not to view guidelines for human
behaviour in the same way as technical documentation."

If we can describe the goal of the oversight instead of how it would
be carried out, we could leave it to the good sense of those providing
oversight to accomplish those goals.

What do you think?

Thanks,

Leo

On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 6:01 AM Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet at heanet.ie> wrote:
>
> Leo,
>
> Thanks for this. As mentioned I can't make the meeting on the 25th, unfortunately.
>
> I completely acknowledge that this is a strawman, but it gives us a good base.
>
> I think it's important that neither the RIPE Chair nor the NCC MD would be able to simply say "No, that deserves a lower sanction or none at all" which could be what's proposed here. I do believe that there is a category of determination (such as someone being ejected from the current and/or future RIPE meetings) that should be brought to them. However that is not for their agreement, per se. It is for their awareness and input.
>
> To use a sports analogy, when a referee in rugby checks a decision with the TV match official, that second person needs to present compelling evidence to overturn an on-field decision. They cannot merely say they disagree. So similarly the Chair or MD would need to be very clear in why the determination would be changed.
>
> Equally, in order to avoid either the appearance or actuality of a power imbalance/pressure being applied, the principles and reasoning behind this would have to be made very clear, at least within the CoC Team, if that makes sense?
>
> The balance here, as you set out, is very delicate and certainly we need to avoid both the appearance and actuality of the Chair or MD being able to "save" or "condemn" people at will, because, well, that would be bad.
>
> One consideration in all of this is that the RIPE Community both chooses and can recall the RIPE Chair, and while that community has an influence on the MD (membership via the Board etc.) it does not choose that person, nor can they remove them.
>
> I think it will be very hard to write all of this down in specific process, tbh, but trust in the CoC is the vital thing.
>
> I hope this helps,
>
> Brian
>
> Brian Nisbet (he/him)
>
> Service Operations Manager
>
> HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network
>
> 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland
>
> +35316609040 brian.nisbet at heanet.ie www.heanet.ie
>
> Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270
>
> ________________________________
> From: coc-tf <coc-tf-bounces at ripe.net> on behalf of Leo Vegoda <leo at vegoda.org>
> Sent: Friday 11 February 2022 18:13
> To: coc-tf at ripe.net <coc-tf at ripe.net>
> Subject: [coc-tf] (no subject)
>
> CAUTION[External]: This email originated from outside of the organisation. Do not click on links or open the attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe.
>
>
> Dear TF and RIPE Chair Team,
>
> Thank you all for a very interesting discussion earlier today.
>
> The action item we took away for us all to think over was the balance
> between the authority delegated to the team that performs the initial
> investigation in suggesting a consequence and oversight by people with
> broader responsibilities. Greater oversight at an earlier stage could
> reduce the options for escalation. In other words, what is the balance
> between judgement and process?
>
> The proposal below is intended as a straw man for discussion. I am not
> emotionally attached to it and won't be offended if I am told that the
> balance is wrong. My intention is for us to reach a shared
> understanding of why we should or should not draw the balance in a
> particular place.
>
> 8<---- START STRAW MAN PROPOSAL ----->8
>
> The TF recognises that it does not have a body of experience for the
> team that will implement the Code of Conduct to draw on. While that
> body of experience is being developed, we favour adjusting the balance
> towards greater oversight of suggested consequences. We recognise that
> this could leave less opportunity for escalation. In essence, we
> favour taking more opportunities to get things right earlier on,
> especially when this is a new process.
>
> For example:
>
> The Code of Conduct Team is asked to investigate a report at a RIPE
> meeting. The sub-team investigating the report (two trained community
> members, plus one RIPE NCC support person) believes that the incident
> is sufficiently serious that the subject of the report should not be
> admitted to the remainder of the RIPE meeting.
>
> Because they feel the need to suggest such serious consequences they
> provide a summary of the incident and the suggested consequences to
> both the RIPE Chair and the RIPE NCC Managing Director. Either of
> those people is able to adjust the suggested consequences before
> implementation.
>
> 8<---- END STRAW MAN PROPOSAL ----->8
>
> This straw man proposal is an implicit acknowledgement that we might
> want to adjust our processes as we gain more experience. The RIPE
> community is likely to suggest changes based on periodic experience
> reports.
>
> Please feel free to share your thoughts on this list or at our next
> scheduled meeting.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Leo
>
> --
> coc-tf mailing list
> coc-tf at ripe.net
> https://mailman.ripe.net/
> --
> coc-tf mailing list
> coc-tf at ripe.net
> https://mailman.ripe.net/