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

All,

Thank you for all of eyeballs on this list - it helps a lot.

I think we all agree - we need clarity on the process. I guess the good 
thing is we're trailblazers!

Rob -- I think it's not either or, but both. We need clarity on what the 
right way forward is for these kinds of 'governance' documents outside 
the PDP (and hopefully this prompts the documentation or formalisation 
of that procedure) AND I think we need him to advise on our 
recommendation to have legal review the 3.0 version (which merges two 
documents both reviewed and commented by community members).

As for how and if the IA comes into play, that's unclear.

Job -- agreed, this shouldn't be held up.

Julia -- thank you for offering to help. Yes, if you could email HPH 
noting the requests above, that would be great.

Two steps forward, one step back...but still forward all the same and we 
learn as we go. Better for everyone.



a On 04/10/2019 13:47, Mirjam Kuehne wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As Daniel already indicated: we (the community) might need a more formal
> process for agreeing on procedures and documents that are not policy.
> Rob calls them "parallel activity" below. Hans Petter referred to them
> as "Community Governance" at some point.
>
> So no, I don't think anyone is expecting to apply the full PDP to the
> code of conduct, but since we don't have another clear process right
> now, maybe we can borrow some aspects from the PDP for now (such as the
> impact analysis).
>
> I am not sure we really need to ask Hans Petter to ask the RIPE NCC to
> do an impact analysis. I think the task force can do that directly. But
> maybe I misunderstood and all the task force wants to get is clarity
> about the process from Hans Petter - which is probably something we'll
> have to develop as a community, but I assume Hans Petter has some ideas
> about it.
>
> Cheers,
> Mirjam
>
>
> On 04/10/2019 11:19, Rob Evans wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>> What do other people think?
>> I’m not really surprised.  Other non-policy documents have gone through the largely the same procedure.  I suppose a heads-up would have been useful, but this could just be a mismatch of expectations — those in the NCC expect us to be using the PDP, we thought this was a parallel activity.
>>
>> When the only hammer you have is the PDP, every document looks like a policy. :-)
>>
>> I suspect getting consensus on v3 and getting the IA on that is the most likely way forward, in my limited understanding anyway.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Rob
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> diversity mailing list
>> diversity at ripe.net
>> https://mailman.ripe.net/
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> diversity mailing list
> diversity at ripe.net
> https://mailman.ripe.net/