[diversity] On the RIPE community CoC

Sasha,

Thanks for all of this! I think there's much to discuss and it might be easier to do that via voice on our call in early March? I think there's a lot we just straight agree on, but the big complexities/discussion points, for me, are around the role (or lack thereof) of the WG Chairs and the RIPE Chair. I think there has to be some, but as you make clear, it isn't straightforward!

So for me, I can respond (as can others!) to both your points and other things, or as I suggested, we can discuss them in a couple of weeks.

Thanks again,

Brian

Brian Nisbet 
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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: diversity <diversity-bounces at ripe.net> On Behalf Of Sasha Romijn
> Sent: Thursday 14 February 2019 10:33
> To: diversity at ripe.net
> Subject: Re: [diversity] On the RIPE community CoC
> 
> Hello all,
> 
> On 11 Feb 2019, at 19:20, Hans Petter Holen <hph at oslo.net> wrote:
> >  I will have to appologise for my late reply from your escalation of the
> matter.
> > That is clearly not acceptable and I will work on ways to improve that.
> > (If you did not get my response, I am happy to resend)
> 
> Yes, I did get your response. But most importantly, I consider this a failure of
> process, not of individuals involved.
> 
> 
> On 12 Feb 2019, at 14:31, Mirjam Kuehne <mir at ripe.net> wrote:
> > Just to clarify the point above: two of the trusted contacts are RIPE
> > NCC staff members. The list moderation is set up such that only these
> > people can see and moderate mails sent to the list. I am sorry if this
> > is not clear from the moderation message you received.
> 
> That is much less of a concern then. However, it’s not very inviting as a first
> reply to a report. Considering the low number of people otherwise affected
> by spam, perhaps it would make sense not to moderate it at all?
> 
> > Regarding mails sent to WG chairs: Everyone who is subscribed to the
> > mailing list of a specific WG can send mail to the WG chairs list of
> > that WG without moderation.
> 
> That’s peculiar, because I’m fairly sure I was subscribed at the time, and my
> mails were still moderated. Still, people should also be able to report safely if
> they’re not a member of the list, so this needs some kind of change.
> 
> 
> On 12 Feb 2019, at 18:19, Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet at heanet.ie> wrote:
> > I do know, not that it helps you or reduces the issues you and possibly
> others have had with the process, that there have been some issues
> reported that have worked through the system in a far "better" fashion. I say
> this not to minimise your experience or the problems, rather to say that the
> failure is not total across the board. However it does highlight that there is
> far, far too high a risk of failure for a number of reasons, not limited to
> individual reactions and a range of other points that you've raised. Again, this
> is a point of note, nothing more.
> 
> It’s good to hear that it has worked well in other cases :)
> 
> > It feels wrong at this point to put the work of the template and the
> communications with JangoCon back on you, but we do also want to find the
> best material for the CoC. Perhaps the Write the Docs CoC might be a better
> starting point at this time? Certainly I would be very happy to work on
> adapting this with you or others, but there's no question it is already an
> agreed action of the TF and we've flagged it to the PC and the WG Chairs.
> 
> So, for DjangoCon Europe 2018, I was on the organising team, and
> restructured much of the CoC. I now adopted most of that work into the new
> Write the Docs CoC. The latter is probably a better starting point, because the
> DjangoCon CoC is focused at supporting one particular event, during a
> temporary time, with one single CoC team responsible for all reports. Write
> the Docs is a community with a number of meetups run by local organisers, a
> number of conferences where core team members are deeply involved, a
> number of conferences where most work is done by local organisers, and a
> number of online spaces. So, the WTD community is more similar to the RIPE
> community, and therefore is a better starting point.
> 
> > Importantly in this will be consequences for violations, something which is
> clearly missing at present.
> 
> Yes, specifying possible consequences is an essential part of a CoC. In the
> WTD CoC response guide, we also provide some guideline on appropriate
> responses (but never hard rules).
> 
> > I think that we, as a TF, can ask the Trusted Contacts now and in the future
> to prepare a report after each meeting, which would, at a suitable level of
> obfuscation, given information on reports made. It's possible this can also
> encompass reports made between meetings or based on other RIPE
> community events or for a, that's something we can determine.
> 
> Yes, these are generally called transparency reports, I co-authored this one
> last year:
> https://2018.djangocon.eu/news/coc-transparency/
> 
> As noted in incident #2 in that report, it is essential to prioritise anonymity
> above detail, so in some cases the report remains very vague. But even then
> it can still help, as it shows that we have been active, and makes visible what
> kind of actions we’ve taken and the lessons learned.
> 
> > The TF will also (and again, I don't think I'm deviating hugely from our
> decisions in Amsterdam or more recent conversations) work with the WG
> Chairs and the RIPE Chair to have CoC related text included in the WG Chairs
> job description and work with the NCC to provide training for them in regards
> to upholding the improved CoC. I think we need to look at how we can do
> the same for the Programme Committee.
> 
> Are the WG chairs actually the best people to handle reports? From what I’ve
> seen in regards to WG chair selection and process, I’m not sure this is part of
> the task they are chosen for. And incidents can occur outside of WG spaces -
> I’m not sure where those would be handled in this model.
> 
> Another concern is that some information sharing is required. If a person has
> already received a reprimand for certain behaviour in one WG, and repeats
> this in another WG, it is important to be aware of the previous incident so
> that someone can’t keep claiming “I’m sorry, I didn’t know”. To share
> incident information with all WG chairs would mean sharing it with 27 people,
> and we haven’t even considered incidents outside WG spaces yet. It’s
> absolutely vital that details of incidents are kept secret and known to as few
> people as possible - having them known to 27 people is way too many. So
> some other structure is required anyways to track repeat violators and
> general trends, without sharing reports between all WG chairs.
> 
> I also recommend against having the RIPE chair as the (only) escalation path
> for CoC issues.
> CoC processes should not depend on a single person, because:
> - It makes it more likely that something will be forgotten or overlooked.
> - The single person can become the target of a CoC-violating action, and
> should be able to excuse themselves from further handling of that incident.
> For example, a recent case where I handled communication for an incident
> resulted in hateful messages being sent to me. At that point, I excused
> myself from handling the report, and left it to other team members, both for
> my own well-being, and because anything else could create the perception
> of a conflict of interest.
> - The single person can have a conflict of interest in handling a report, for
> example a report being made by or about a close friend or close business
> relation, and in that case someone needs to be able to excuse themselves.
> - The CoC needs to account for the possibility a report being made about a
> person who is usually involved in CoC handling. I’ve not really dealt with that
> personally, but even if it never happens, there needs to be a process for it, if
> only to help build trust in the CoC reporting process.
> 
> Sasha
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> diversity mailing list
> diversity at ripe.net
> https://mailman.ripe.net/