[diversity] [ripe-list] Towards a more inclusive community

I agree with Sasha

On Fri, Nov 22, 2019, 20:03 Sasha Romijn <sasha at mxsasha.eu> wrote:

> Hello Jim,
>
> On 21 Oct 2019, at 10:37, Jim Reid <jim at rfc1035.com> wrote:
> > The TF need to consider other options. A range of sanctions are possible.
>
> A range of resolutions (the proposed CoC does not use the term
> “sanctions”) are already in the document.
>
> Perhaps it helps as well if I offer some context. From my personal
> experience being on several CoC teams, and seeing reports from other teams,
> over the last several years, I’d say that 80-90% of reports I’ve been
> involved with are resolved with what the draft calls a private reprimand.
> We contact the person, tell them that what happened is not acceptable and
> explain why. They understand, apologise, and don’t do it again (as far as
> we know). The reporter is almost always happy with that resolution as well,
> so the situation is resolved.
>
> I have dealt with reports where more serious resolutions were decided
> upon. One form is intentional escalation, where the person continues and
> escalates their behaviour intentionally. The other common form are reports
> which are so serious that a more serious resolution is needed.
>
> To share a few examples where a more serious action than a simple
> reprimand was taken:
> - Someone who was permanently denied participation after behaviour was
> addressed by a private reprimand, and they continued to escalate up to the
> point of making death threats to a CoC team member.
> - Someone who caused several separate incidents due to severely excessive
> alcohol use, was warned that any further incident would lead to permanently
> being denied participation to further conferences. That person improved
> their behaviour and is still an active member of that community. In fact,
> they were, and continue to be, very grateful that our team forced them to
> confront a serious drinking problem.
> - Someone who vandalised a poster with a hateful message calling for
> genocide on a particular demographic. I would have been strongly in favour
> of permanently denying participation. Unfortunately the person was never
> identified. I also can’t say for sure whether that would have been the
> team’s consensus, as we never progressed to that discussion.
> - Someone who made death threats against a conference organiser (which was
> more severe than the first example, as when both parties may be at the
> conference, the threat has much more credibility).
> - Someone who made repeated statements to the organisers that they were
> not planning to follow the CoC, but had not made any serious violations.
> The person was informed that the CoC was not optional, and that if they
> felt unable to follow the CoC, they would not be able to participate in the
> community. However, it was stressed that they were still entirely welcome
> in the future otherwise. The person indicated they were not interested in
> participating any further.
>
> I don’t know if the ratios in resolutions map to the RIPE community as
> well, as the other communities in which I’ve done this work had already
> made much more progress in diversity and inclusivity than the RIPE
> community.
>
> In this context, I continue to be surprised that the idea that someone may
> be, in theory, denied further participation, appears to be so controversial
> in this community. Does this community honestly believe that in the cases
> above, denying participation is excessive? And as Brian and I said in our
> RIPE79 session, doing nothing will also deny people participation - we’ll
> just be denying participation to their targets instead.
>
> Sasha
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> diversity mailing list
> diversity at ripe.net
> https://mailman.ripe.net/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/diversity/attachments/20191122/545db8d7/attachment.html>