[diversity] RIPE Code of Conduct 2.0

Hello Daniel,

Thanks for your extensive response.

Unless I’ve overlooked it, we did not include a mention of the proposed
CoC response guide in the mail to ripe-list, which answers some of
your questions, and I’ve responded to more things below.

The most recent draft of the response guide is on:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gaLo4axYDRTpQnhUJyG92EHBmEIkxSDN8Urmy-zn9nQ/edit?usp=sharing <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gaLo4axYDRTpQnhUJyG92EHBmEIkxSDN8Urmy-zn9nQ/edit?usp=sharing>

> Instead, I suggest to a call on everyone in the community to actively
> intervene when they observe inappropriate behavior and to help all
> parties concerned to resolve the situation.

Although this is a good message in general, it is in my experience
unlikely to have much effect. Speaking up, even if you are not the
person directly affected by the incident, is a big step. It always involves
some danger, especially when the person creating harm is in a position
of power. The bystander effect also comes into play.

I would definitely be unlikely to speak up, because it’s usually too risky,
and has too little chance to make a difference. Especially at a RIPE
meeting right now, due to lack of an effective CoC process.

Also, “helping all parties to resolve the situation” is risky language,
as it places a responsibility on the person being harmed to contribute
to resolving the situation. In some incidents this may be appropriate,
but in CoC teams I’ve been a part of, a fundamental point of all the
process is that we place as little burden on the reporter as possible.

> I suggest to maintain the current system of trusted contacts for
> reporting violations and add that staff and volunteers such as chairs
> and PC are also available. Where, by the way, is the evidence that this
> is not sufficient? Maybe the trusted contacts can provide some sort of
> transparency report to us?

Well, currently I wouldn’t consider reporting a CoC incident at a RIPE
meeting, because why would I? None of the people you list are actually
empowered to take any action, other than offer sympathies.

And how will these people make decisions? If I make a CoC report, will
it be discussed by the entire PC, all chairs, and trusted contacts together?
That is way too many people, and introduces many problems.

If you empower these people to actually take action, up to the unusually
rare action of immediate removal from the conference, how does it solve
the concerns you raise about a CoC team?

On a sidenote, this would also involve a requirement for training all PC
members, WG chairs, and trusted contacts at CoC incident response.

> Further I recommend to develop a response plan that defines who is
> responsible to take action in cases where individuals do not stop
> inappropriate behavior once it is pointed out to them.

Are you saying that people should always, in every incident, first have
the behaviour pointed out, then re-violate, before more serious action
can be taken?

> These
> responsibilities do exist today within our governance structure. They
> are shared between RIPE, RIPE NCC and third parties such as the
> owners/operators of our venues. Maybe this needs to be clarified and we
> may need to establish roles within these structures that are responsible
> to follow up on any actions.

I’d argue that the current CoC process has way too many people kind of
responsible, and therefore in the end nobody responsible. In the current
situation, nobody has sufficient power, is able to act with sufficient speed,
provide sufficient confidentiality, and has expertise, to deal with incidents.

As an example, I reported a CoC incident about 7 months ago now, and
have still not received a response other than a number of apologies for
not sending a response. This is exactly due to the lack of process and
clear responsibility.

> But let us not create a new committee whose
> sole purpose is to sanction community members without any process!

I think this is partially addressed by the response guide linked above,
which we should have published along with the CoC process. Perhaps
this needs amendments. But the new proposal has much more process
behind it than the current setup.

> We should also make it clear that we do not tolerate any abuse of the
> code of conduct itself. I realise that can be interpreted as
> off-putting. However it is an essential part of such a code.

Do you have a suggested wording for this? I have intentionally avoided
this in the past, because it risks discouraging reports, and getting
people to report incidents is one of the hardest parts.

Sasha

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/diversity/attachments/20190605/62d95413/attachment.html>