[coc-tf] Draft Minutes – CoC TF Nineteenth Call

Dear TF members,

Here are the minutes from our last call.

Cheers

Ant

***

*Draft Minutes – CoC TF Nineteenth Call**
*
10 December 15:30 (UTC+1)

*Attendees:* Denesh Bhabuta, Athina Fragkouli, Niall O’Reilly, Brian 
Nisbet, Leo Vegoda, Salam Yamout

*Summary:* The CoC TF discussed how to handle disputes over decisions 
made by the CoC Team, especially disagreements over the consequences 
given for behaviour violations. Athina explained legal processes 
regarding necessary evidence and appeals and offered advice on how to 
incorporate these principles into the CoC Team process. The TF 
considered whether it was useful to draw from the legal process given 
the fact that CoC breaches were not typically violations of the law and 
would often rely on eyewitness and personal accounts rather than hard 
evidence. It was decided that the legal principles for evidence and 
appeals could be used for inspiration but that the CoC process itself 
was not a legal procedure, though the CoC Team did need to have some 
liability protection. The TF also discussed loss of office, which was 
one possible consequence of a CoC breach. This was relevant for WG 
chairs and other community leaders. They noted that loss of office could 
be an indirect result that arose from other consequences, such as 
exclusion from mailing lists or meetings. With input from the RIPE Vice 
Chair, the TF decided that it was not the CoC Team’s role to remove 
chairs from office, as such procedures already existed. However, it was 
acceptable to have loss of office as a secondary result of other 
consequences. The TF agreed to incorporate these conclusions into the 
working process document ahead of its next meeting.

*1. Minutes*

The minutes from the last meeting were approved, with one change from 
Leo to replace the word “punishments” in the summary with “consequences”.

*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

Leo said this action was still ongoing, with no update on progress.

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

This action remained ongoing. Leo noted they should produce a working 
document that could later be revised.

*- Leo to draft a working document for Athina and Antony to update for 
discussion at the next meeting.*

Leo marked this action as complete.
*
**4. Escalation in Progress*

Athina discussed how to address disputes about whether a breach had 
occurred. In a court of law, the burden of proof was on the person 
making the allegations, who would need to provide evidence. The other 
party could deny the allegations and make their own, in which case they 
would also need to produce evidence. The court would then rule based on 
the evidence that was submitted. If the party that filed the original 
allegations appealed the court’s decision, they could not bring in new 
evidence or the case would be dismissed. They would need to start a new 
proceeding instead.

Regarding procedures, Athina said it would be best not to go into too 
much detail, or people might use the list of rules as guidelines for how 
to commit violations without being caught. In the RIPE NCC’s arbitration 
procedure, there was a high-level description of the investigation 
process, called the submission of information, where the arbiter asked 
the parties to submit relevant evidence 
(https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-691). Failure to provide 
evidence would render the allegations invalid. However, the arbitration 
process had different kinds of evidence than the CoC process, as 
communication in these cases mostly took place over email. Evidence of 
behaviour violations would be more varied, including eyewitness, textual 
and/or video proof, and so there could be different accounts of what 
happened. The party making the allegations might not have any proof at 
all, which would make it hard for the CoC Team to impose high-level 
consequences. The CoC Team must therefore be careful about how it 
evaluated cases, and it might be a good idea to provide training on this.

Leo said the arbitration process was good context but asked for more 
input about disputes over the levels of consequences, i.e. if someone 
disagreed with the level of consequences applied to them or to the other 
party.

Brian again suggested a book 
(https://frameshiftconsulting.com/resources/code-of-conduct-book/) 
centred around handling reports, as it offered a legalistic framework 
for the process outside of a court of law. It was important to consider 
the sorts of reports the CoC TF might receive, which would differ from 
legal cases and likely rely on first-hand accounts without other 
evidence. Too much detail might not be useful, but people deserved to 
have a general list of rules.

Athina responded that they should not lay out all the potential 
allowable evidence. Instead, they could have private guidelines for the 
team that were vetted by lawyers to ensure fairness. This would 
demonstrate that the rulings were legally sound.

Brian agreed that there should be guidance for the team. However, he did 
not agree with the notion of legal soundness here as these cases would 
not necessarily involve someone breaking the law. Someone may have 
simply pushed CoC boundaries, and these violations might merit them 
being banned from the community.

Athina acknowledged that they were not discussing breaches of the law, 
but it was still important to have legal principles that made sense and 
led to fair conclusions. The TF’s decisions would also reflect the 
community’s standards for behaviour.

Leo asked if she knew of other appeals processes for disputes over the 
appropriate level of consequences. He asked what the steps would be in 
such a process.

Athina said there was an appeals procedure in the legal process in which 
there were multiple levels of appeals. The law outlined crimes and their 
associated punishments in detail, with ranges for the severity of the 
crime. In a court, if someone found their punishment too harsh, they 
could appeal and ask about the rationale behind that punishment. They 
could challenge the elements of the case that led to that severe 
consequence. The appeals court might then reduce the punishment or 
reject the appeal, but it could not give a harsher penalty. Then, either 
party could again appeal regarding the consequence given and its 
rationale. On the other hand, the arbitration process did not have an 
appeals process. Instead, the next step for that process was the 
national courts. So if the CoC TF were to draw up an appeals process, 
they should look to the legal process for inspiration, but that might be 
difficult because the CoC TF had not explicitly outlined consequences 
for specific violations.

Salam said these were ethical, not legal rules, and the worst 
consequence would be exclusion from community events and mailing lists. 
She said people should be expected to abide by the TF’s rulings and not 
escalate matters to the legal system. She asked whether it was possible 
that people might sue over the TF’s rulings.

Athina said there was a risk of being sued but they had taken legal 
steps to reduce the TF’s liability. For instance, they had added a 
clause to the terms and conditions for meetings in which participants 
agreed to abide by the CoC and to waive liability in the case of CoC 
breaches. There was no way to prevent legal escalation completely, but 
the CoC Team needed to be able to demonstrate the soundness of their 
decisions.

Brian said that being excluded from meetings could affect people’s 
livelihoods, as well as their reputations.

Leo said this related to the next agenda item.

*5. Loss of Office*

Leo said he had discussed this item with Mirjam and Niall, as it 
affected the RIPE community as well. He asked Niall to share his thoughts.

Niall said that some consequences, such as exclusion from MLs, would 
already preclude someone from being a WG chair because they would not be 
able to carry out their duties. Therefore, loss of office would not need 
to be a specific consequence because it would be a side effect of other 
consequences. If necessary, the RIPE Chair could speak to WG chairs 
about resigning if they could no longer carry out their duties or could 
even remove them if needed. If the RIPE Chair needed to be removed, the 
existing recall process would have to be carried out by the community. 
He asked for Athina’s thoughts on this approach.

Athina said as long as there was a process outlined beforehand, they 
could feel confident in following it. There were already processes for 
dismissing EB members and arbiters, for instance. She asked if there was 
already a process for dismissing WG chairs that outlined why a chair 
could be dismissed as well as how.

Brian said there was a process for removing WG chairs. But if the WG 
chair did not comply, the RIPE Chair team could get involved. There 
might however be many instances of minor behaviour violations that could 
merit the WG removing the chair. The TF should not legislate these in 
too much detail because any consequences the CoC Team had given should 
indicate to the WG or community that the chair was no longer suitable 
for their office. The community or WG should then decide to remove the 
chair using those pre-existing procedures.

Niall said the CoC TF was not the right place to describe the process of 
removing WG chairs but rather to outline expectations for chairs 
regarding the CoC. This would include mentioning that a chair incurring 
consequences such as exclusion from MLs, etc., might be a situation 
whether they should resign or expect to be removed. The TF should 
connect expectations to the roles rather than to the process.

Athina said they should include a description of the role, the selection 
process and the dismissal process in one document. But it was important 
to consider how confidentiality could be preserved in the case of loss 
of office. A community procedure for removing someone from office would 
not maintain confidentiality. Instead, the procedure would need to be 
high-level so that the removal from office could be explained by other 
causes, not just a CoC breach. The RIPE Chair might also need to be 
responsible for dismissing a WG chair.

Salam agreed with Athina’s point. The role of the CoC Team was just to 
decide if there was a breach of the CoC, not to dismiss WG chairs. 
Removing chairs from office should be a separate process.

Brian referenced the Anti-Abuse WG chair removal policy that covered 
loss of office and the reasons for it. This supported Athina’s point as 
well. Other roles’ descriptions, such as PC members, also already 
contained language about what should happen if members were unable to 
carry out their roles. Regarding confidentiality, it would be hard to 
fully maintain given the size of the community, but deposed chairs would 
not need to share the reasons behind their removal.

Niall asked whether this document would outline consequences for breaches.

Leo said it would and listed some examples, such as exclusion from 
posting on a ML or being asked to leave a meeting.

Niall said they should consider if loss of office was really separate 
from these consequences if it could occur as a secondary result of them. 
These consequences could be used by the community as proxies for 
removing someone from office. But perhaps they could just keep removal 
from office in the descriptions of roles.

Brian said the TF could not decide this themselves and they needed the 
WG chairs’ input. But if someone did something resulting in severe 
consequences, they were likely not fit to be in office regardless. The 
RIPE Chair would also be involved if it came to this point.

Leo said he did not want to recommend anything without the rule of law 
behind it, particularly regarding equal application of the CoC to all 
members of the community. If the consequences for a WG chair were 
different from those for other members, that would be unfair.

*6. Working Draft*

There was not enough time for this agenda item.

*7. AOB*

Leo asked the TF members to send a message to the ML if the meeting 
times would be an issue with their schedules in the new year.

Denesh asked if there would be a meeting on 17 December.

Leo said this would be the last meeting of the year, as too many people 
would be unavailable on 17 December.

*8. Actions*
*
**- RIPE NCC to determine what changes were needed in the working draft 
and to supply any other relevant community documents, such as WG chair 
descriptions.*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/coc-tf/attachments/20220112/987be619/attachment.html>