[diversity] Requesting Impact Analysis + Legal Review from the RIPE NCC on CoC 2.0

Hi Brian,

I don't think it's legal's responsibility to come to us for the document 
though, it's on the TF to initiate that (I think?)

Admittedly, I didn't really understand that there was a formal procedure 
in place to have that happen. I asked legal to review it once we had 
enough time to get some substantial feedback because that seemed to make 
sense but I'm informed that there also needs to be an impact 
analysis...so yeah, it looks like that will take some time unfortunately.

It's important we get it right though and I certainly wouldn't want 
anyone to halt progress on such an important document on a technicality.

Legal has been really quick with their feedback and incredibly helpful 
in making the 3.0 version more solid.

They said, I'm told that because the 2.0 draft was the one sent to the 
ripe-list in May, that's the one we should be asking to review...not the 
updated 3.0 version where we've incorporated the feedback and comments 
(which was done openly on Google Docs and on this list, it should be 
noted).

TBH, I'm not sure I see the logic here

As far as transparency goes, I think we've done that.

As far as I can see, we're being asked to follow the PDP on this? Legal 
explained that since we are asking the RIPE NCC to potentially take 
action in this CoC (for example, potentially removing someone from the 
meeting after a severe violation), there needs to be an impact analysis.

Hope this clarifies.

Thanks,

Amanda



On 03/10/2019 18:30, Brian Nisbet wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Mirjam Kuehne <mir at ripe.net>
>> Sent: Thursday 3 October 2019 16:57
>> To: Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet at heanet.ie>; Amanda Gowland
>> <agowland at ripe.net>; diversity at ripe.net
>> Subject: Re: [diversity] Requesting Impact Analysis + Legal Review from the
>> RIPE NCC on CoC 2.0
>>
>> Hi Brian,
>>
>> On 03/10/2019 17:37, Brian Nisbet wrote:
>>> Amanda,
>>>
>>> Thanks for this.
>>>
>>> I thought we did have a chair, and I thought that was Mirjam, but I
>> acknowledge it's been a while since this was talked about.
>>
>> Yes, I remember I chaired a meeting where it was decided not to have a chair
>> :-) But for practical reasons and as a contact person for the RIPE Chair it might
>> be good to choose a task force chair and best someone from the community
>> and not the RIPE NCC.
> I suspect it would. Of course the big question is "who"? For a variety of reasons I don't find myself in a position to chair the TF, nor do I feel I would be the right person to do so.
>
>>> However we had also tried to have as little... authority as possible, of
>> course.
>>> That said, should we be sending the May document or the more recent
>> one to the NCC? And, unfortunately, of course, this means that we won't
>> have anything to formally propose at RIPE 79, I suppose?
>>
>> There is currently a speaking slot for the (chair of the) diversity task force
>> during the community plenary on Thursday afternoon that could be used to
>> present the main principles and changes in the document to the community
>> (Hans Petter is going to contact the task force about this).
>> But yes, it is probably not ready to come to a final decision at RIPE 79.
> Right, that would make sense. I am happy to work on such a presentation with people, but again we need different (and more diverse) faces on stage.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Brian
>
>
>>> I will admit that this is quite late in the day for the NCC legal team to be
>> asking for this. They had sight of the document in May and that would have
>> been the time to start talking about an IA, not less than two weeks before a
>> meeting. Do we know why this suddenly cropped up?
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> 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 Amanda
>>>> Gowland
>>>> Sent: Thursday 3 October 2019 13:16
>>>> To: diversity at ripe.net
>>>> Subject: [diversity] Requesting Impact Analysis + Legal Review from
>>>> the RIPE NCC on CoC 2.0
>>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> So, an update...
>>>>
>>>> After speaking with RIPE NCC's legal team on next steps for the CoC,
>>>> they advise that the Chair of this TF (which we don't have afaik)
>>>> request an impact analysis and legal review of the RIPE CoC 2.0,
>>>> which Brian shared on the ripe- list last May for comment:
>>>> https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/ripe-meetings/ripe-meeting-
>>>> code-of-conduct-2-0-draft
>>>>
>>>> Could someone (Brian, Shane or Denesh) email legal at ripe.net with the
>>>> link above to request this and cc the TF?
>>>>
>>>> Now, prior to this info, I had been working (a lot) on adapting the
>>>> 2.0 text to address the comments received here. I also felt that
>>>> there was a lot of overlap between the CoC text and the CoC Team doc,
>>>> so I merged them for
>>>> clarity:
>>>>
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yqOUPR02SONuSt812cuOBkk_xnhjY
>>>> zjdk9qmsJkcDdQ/edit
>>>>
>>>> This is a version I'd like you to comment on, hopefully we can move
>>>> forward...I hope we've addressed the concerns about appeals.
>>>>
>>>> Happy for your feedback.
>>>>
>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>
>>>> Amanda
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> diversity mailing list
>>>> diversity at ripe.net
>>>> https://mailman.ripe.net/
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> diversity mailing list
>>> diversity at ripe.net
>>> https://mailman.ripe.net/
>>>