[diversity] [Ext] Re: *draft* CoC Team doc

Will all due respect,

a. I would like to make a remark:

In my personal opinion, there is a sensitive matter in 'Report Resolutions'
"- Requiring the violator to apologise either privately or publicly ..."

    In some cases the reporter may be in a very difficult position if
needed to face the violator (of even be in the same space) for the
apologies due to emotional duress of the situation. Reading closely this
phrase it is not very clear (at least to me) what is the format (how) of
this requirement. I believe as the note clearly states here:

"Note: It is up to the reporter if they will accept an apology from the
violator"

    that perhaps it is not a requirement for both parties to be present,
if the reporter does not feel safe (physical or emotional) it is up to
the reporter to make a choice and then the team can handle the apology
with their own discretion.


To be honest, I may have not understand it 100% correct, so please
forgive me if such the case.



b. I would also want to make a suggestion:

    Perhaps it is of value to run a simulate instance of violation (as a
CoC training game) and try to handle the situation or even try to
enforce CoC to identify areas of possible improvement. In a few cases
I've noticed [in small conferences] that the lack of experience from the
organizers, even with a CoC in hand, it was hard to handle such
incidents. And some times aggression can escalate conflict instead of
reduce it.


Thank you,



On 8/29/19 1:59 PM, Amanda Gowland wrote:
> On 29/08/2019 12:43, Sasha Romijn wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Thanks for your work on the document, Amanda!
>>
>> Other than two points I left as a comment in the document, if I’m
>> reading this right the RIPE chair will, on their own, select the
>> members of the CoC team. How will the RIPE chair do this? What are
>> the considerations that apply to this decision?
> HPH is in the office tomorrow and this is one of the things I want to
> talk to him about...he might have some input about the selection
> process (and I will share that here).
>
> I, personally, don't feel *great* about the selection of the team
> being down to one person either. But it also doesn't make sense to
> have the RIPE NCC EB do it (as they do for the Arbiters Panel). Other
> options could be:
>
> - Decision is made by vote by the community
> - We have a "meta" decision making body that makes the decision(but
> then we're going to need a whole process behind that selection process
> too...)
> - HPH gets input from the Diversity TF on the selection
>
>> I also don’t see any space for someone saying “hey, I don’t think
>> this person should be on the CoC team, for <reason>” (in private and
>> confidential). There are definitely people in this community who I
>> would be very uncomfortable reporting anything to. In established CoC
>> teams, there’s at least the option of checking whether there were any
>> previous reports about new volunteers, but we don’t have any data
>> like that.
> You're right, we should have this in place in the process. We should
> explicitly say that if there are any objections to a potential team
> member, people can confidentially submit their concern...especially
> considering that we don't have any formal way of checking to make sure
> their behaviour hasn't been in violation in the past.
>> I’m also wondering what we can do to attract a diverse group of
>> volunteers. It would be a poor outcome to end up with a CoC team that
>> has little diversity, and consists mainly of usual suspects of our
>> community - I would definitely be more reluctant to report. I don’t
>> immediately have ideas for that.
> Share this concern too - we cannot have a homogenous team. I expect
> that we may need to encourage people we think would be a good fit to
> volunteer. I can also add something in the doc about this...that we
> are aiming for a diverse team.
>> Sasha
>>
>>> On 29 Aug 2019, at 10:26, Amanda Gowland <agowland at ripe.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks Leo, saw them come in and they are great, thanks!
>>>
>>> Will work those in this morning.
>>>
>>> On 28/08/2019 18:10, Leo Vegoda wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Amanda Gowland <agowland at ripe.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>> Are we ready to:
>>>>>
>>>>> a) Share the draft CoC Team doc with the wider community so that
>>>>> b) We can ask HPH to declare consensus + open the call for volunteers
>>>> I have reviewed the updated text and made a couple of comments.
>>>> Whether my suggestions are incorporated or not I think this
>>>> document is good and ready to share more widely.
>>>>
>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>
>>>> Leo Vegoda
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> diversity mailing list
>>> diversity at ripe.net
>>> https://mailman.ripe.net/
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> diversity mailing list
> diversity at ripe.net
> https://mailman.ripe.net/

-- 
Respect all people that you meet at the space, as well as the space itself