[coc-tf] Draft Minutes – CoC TF Thirty-Fifth Call

Dear TF members,

Here are the minutes from our last call.

Cheers

Kjerstin

***

9 November 15:00 (UTC+2)

Attendees: Antony Gollan, Brian Nisbet, Leo Vegoda, Salam Yamout

Scribe: Kjerstin Burdiek

Summary: The CoC TF shared their impressions of RIPE 85 and concluded both the CoC consultant’s presentation and the drop-in sessions had gone well. There were now some volunteers for the first CoC Team. Given the small amount of community discussion at the meeting, the TF felt there may now be consensus on the process documents. The group discussed what updates should be made in the main process document before publishing the next version. They decided to make changes to the language in the sections about anonymous reports, team selection and training, appeals, data protection and legal indemnification for the CoC Team members. At the next meeting, they would review these changes and discuss Athina’s risk evaluations. 

1. Minutes

The minutes from the last meeting were approved.

2. Agenda

The agenda item on risk was removed as Athina was not present.

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 but would be picked up by the CoC Team. 

-Antony to speak with the CoC consultant and other relevant parties about a possible CoC presentation at RIPE 85

This action was complete.

-Athina to investigate the scale of risk that data might be needed in a court.

This action was on hold until Athina could be present.

-Athina to review language over data retention, training and the broader team.

This action was on hold until Athina could be present.

-Athina to evaluate the risk of discovery in common-law jurisdictions and what language is needed in communications templates.

This action was on hold until Athina could be present.

4. RIPE 85

Leo said the CoC consultant’s presentation had gone well and asked the TF for their thoughts. 

Antony agreed but noted there had been little discussion. The next time the TF published the documents, they could point to this as evidence the community was in consensus. 

Brian agreed there seemed to be consensus now and more approval of the CoC documents. 

Antony said the drop-in sessions had gone well too, and there had been two volunteers for the CoC Team. One person had shared that she had appreciated being informed at the start of the RIPE Meeting that there was a CoC as it made her feel more comfortable when interacting with other attendees.

Leo said overall the feedback was positive and it was good they had volunteers for the team. They could reach out to more possible candidates as well.

Salam said Mirjam had also contributed to moving the CoC process forward. 

5. Document Updates

Leo asked if the TF needed to update the recruitment process document and the main process document. The former had not received any feedback.

The group decided to leave the recruitment process document as it was for now.

Leo asked what changes they should make to the main process document, such as in the section about how anonymous reports would be evaluated.

Salam said they should not go into detail about the evaluation of specific cases. They had already discussed this subject with community members at RIPE 85.

Brian agreed they should not try to quantify their evaluation methods.

Leo said they could mention the CoC Team would use a more detailed procedural document. 

Salam said they should not have more documents. 

Leo said the CoC TF would not be the authors of this document.

Antony said community members might then ask to see this new document. He suggested instead adding language in this section saying the Team would have more specific processes. 

Salam suggested putting this at the end.

Brian said they should leave this as is. People could examine the processes in action and re-evaluate later if needed.

Antony suggested some language in this section advising reporters about what to expect when submitting anonymously. 

Leo suggested adding this to the webform instead. 

Antony said it would be good to include this in the document to address people’s concerns. 

The group discussed some language for this, and Antony said he would update the document.

In the section about report assessment, the group discussed adding language clarifying that there would be more in-depth investigation for reports of serious misconduct.

Brian said they should not list specific steps in the process so the CoC Team could have some flexibility. For example, the team may not contact the subject of a report for their story in the event of very public behaviour with many witnesses. 

Antony suggested broad language about the correspondence between the level of investigation and type of report. 

Leo said people might deliberately commit a series of small acts of misconduct to avoid serious investigation. 

Salam said any violations were serious. The CoC Team should have the option to use any of the procedural tools to investigate as needed, so the TF should not outline a process.

Antony said different types of events would require different levels of investigation. 

Brian said the TF had already discussed this and the current text covered it.

Leo suggested some text saying the community needed to select candidates for the team that they could trust. This would be easier than creating a perfect process. 

Antony agreed, as people wanted some oversight over the team.

The group discussed specific language for this.

In the section about making decisions, Salam said they needed to state whether the team made a decision or a recommendation.

Antony said they had concluded it was a decision, and the RIPE Chair had confirmed this.

Leo agreed it must be the team’s decision so they could escalate appeals to the Chair. 

Antony pointed out there was a line in the text about informing the RIPE Chair, which could be confusing. 

Leo said indeed the RIPE NCC must be informed about what consequences to implement, and it would be logical to inform the RIPE Chair as well as the head of the community.

Brian said it would be good for the Chair to ask questions about the situation as oversight, although the Chair should not be able to stop the process.

Leo agreed the RIPE Chair should ensure the process had been followed properly. He asked for the TF’s thoughts about the section on appeals.

Antony questioned whether a different part of the CoC Team should review the appeal. 

Salam said this should not be allowed.

Brian noted there might not be enough people for a different group to audit decisions, but outsourcing the appeals had legal and financial consequences. It was possible the RIPE Chair could bring in more people from the community if there were not enough on the review team, but the TF should not require a third-party audit in the document.

Salam suggested using outsourcing as a first step for audits, at least for sensitive reports. 

Brian said the process should be kept in the community as much as possible. 

Antony asked if the appeal would be about whether the process was followed or whether the decision itself was correct. If it was just about reviewing the procedure, the RIPE NCC’s Legal team could handle this. 

Salam said it could be about either. Using the analogy of a court case, there should be an entirely new group to assess it. 

Brian agreed but said the number of people available would be the biggest obstacle.

Leo said the TF had decided the RIPE Chair would be the final assessor in an appeal, and they could be more explicit about that. 

Antony said people might then be tempted to push cases to the Chair.

Leo said it would be fine to see the process tested in minor appeals and improve from there. 

The group discussed whether changes were needed in other sections.

Brian noted the section about statistical reporting had been well-received by the community.

Leo agreed and said it made people feel more confident in the CoC Team. 

Antony said some people were concerned about there being permanent bans in the section about consequences. 

The group discussed this and concluded there needed to be an option for permanent bans. 

Brian noted that the section about loss of office could reassure people that the WGs rather than the CoC Team held the power to officially remove chairs from office. 

6. AOB

Leo said the risk item needed to be on the next meeting’s agenda, as well as a discussion about the updates to the process document. They also needed to decide what they would do to protect the CoC Team from potential legal threats and financial damages. This would probably be part of the recruitment process document rather than the main process document.

Antony suggested asking the community for comments on the recruitment process document when publishing the updated main process document.

Leo said it was better to do this separately. He noted that Denesh would chair the next meeting. 

Brian said he might not be able to attend. 

Leo said they could reduce the agenda if needed based on how many could attend.

7. Actions
-RIPE NCC to draft a section about the importance of the RIPE Chair’s judgment when selecting a CoC Team and the importance of the quality of the CoC Team’s training. 
-RIPE NCC to review appeals text and clarify that the RIPE Chair is the final stage of appeal.
-Athina to update the sections on data protection and legal protection for the CoC Team.