[diversity] "Free speech" in the RIPE Code of Conduct

Folks,

As Mirjam says, this is something we can also discuss in person in Amsterdam, but there's a balance here.

The community is built around an open exchange of views, but this has to be tempered by not causing harm and I think many of us are more aware of the ways in which harm can be caused than perhaps we once were. But we do need to bring the community with us.

I believe there are ways in which we can still aspire to have both, while noting that not causing harm trumps anyone's notional right to free speech. Or rather they are still welcome to speak freely, just not within the bounds of the RIPE community.

The forms of words around this have evolved over time, certainly, and questions about them are always useful. Sometimes those of us who crafted them get too enmeshed and comfortable. The Code of Conduct is, honestly, not where I would like it to be, so I look forward to improving it with you all!

Thanks,

Brian

Brian Nisbet 
Network 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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: diversity <diversity-bounces at ripe.net> On Behalf Of Leslie
> Sent: Tuesday 11 September 2018 16:01
> To: Mirjam Kuehne <mir at ripe.net>
> Cc: diversity at ripe.net
> Subject: Re: [diversity] "Free speech" in the RIPE Code of Conduct
> 
> Hi -
> I was involved with creating the first version of the Code of Conduct!
>  We did not have an expert help us -- if I remember correctly, we read a
> number of CoC's of organizations and conferences, tried to write down some
> of the things we love about the RIPE community, to show what we want to
> encourage (Free speech and diversity of views was really meant in the most
> positive of ways!  We didn't want to discourage people from having frank
> discussions on IPv4 allocation strategies, for example). We then wanted to
> clarify what was definitely NOT okay.
> 
> So, this may be that best intentions had unintended consequences :(
> 
> Leslie
> 
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 3:22 AM Mirjam Kuehne <mir at ripe.net> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Sasha,
> >
> > Thanks for pointing this out and for sharing your concerns about the
> > current wording.
> >
> > I just looked back through the various versions on the website, and as
> > far as I can tell, this sentence has been in there from the beginning
> > (in 2016).
> >
> > However, this is definitely something we can discuss in the Diversity
> > Task Force. We're planning to have our next meeting during RIPE 77 in
> > Amsterdam.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Mirjam
> >
> >
> > On 09/09/2018 14:02, Sasha Romijn wrote:
> > > Hello all,
> > >
> > > I noticed the following in the RIPE mailing list and RIPE meeting
> > > Code of Conduct (emphasis mine):
> > >
> > >> Please treat each other with tolerance and respect. *_Free speech_*
> > >> and an open exchange of ideas *_is encouraged and celebrated_*.
> > >> Demeaning, intimidating or harming other community members is
> wrong.
> > >> We are especially sensitive to behaviour that offends based on
> > >> gender, sexual orientation, religion, race or ethnic origin, or
> > >> other perceived social, cultural, or personal differences.
> > >
> > > Earlier, the CoC also mentions "diversity of views”.
> > >
> > > My concern with this wording is that, in my personal experience,
> > > “free speech” and “diversity of views” are often used as arguments
> > > by people to justify sharing discriminatory views, or demanding that
> > > space is made for their ideas. It makes it seem like CoC decisions
> > > are taken in a way where free speech and the diversity of views are
> > > balanced against harm, rather than just saying that harmful
> > > statements are not ok. Even in the more restricted European legal
> > > interpretation of free speech, there are many statements that are
> > > inappropriate and harmful for a community that aims to be inclusive, yet
> most certainly within the legal bounds.
> > >
> > > By making free speech and diversity of views seem equally important
> > > to the incidence of harm, I think the current wording allows too
> > > much freedom, and can reduce the reporting rate. Increasing the
> > > reporting rate is a general struggle for communities, and anything
> > > that makes people more hesitant to report weakens the CoC.
> > > Personally, I’d be reluctant to report anything non-physical under a
> > > CoC that mentions free speech and diversity of ideas as values.
> > >
> > > If my memory serves me right, the text of the CoC was decided by the
> > > WG chairs. Was there an actual expert involved? And what was the
> > > reason for the chairs (or whoever else was involved) to mention free
> > > speech and diversity of views this way? Did they consider the
> > > potential negative impact? Writing CoC language is quite difficult
> > > and sensitive, and small changes can have large impacts.
> > >
> > > Sasha
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > diversity mailing list
> > > diversity at ripe.net
> > > https://mailman.ripe.net/
> > >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > diversity mailing list
> > diversity at ripe.net
> > https://mailman.ripe.net/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> diversity mailing list
> diversity at ripe.net
> https://mailman.ripe.net/