[diversity] some thoughts on draft code of conduct 3.0

Hi all,

I have read the draft code of conduct published at <https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/ripe-meetings/ripe-meeting-code-of-conduct-3-0-draft> and have written down some comments, as requested.

Some context: I do not personally feel like I am in an under-represented group of any kind. Despite being a serial immigrant in an entirely technical sense, I have never felt systemically under-represented, oppressed or threatened in my life. I think this makes me fortunate, since oppression is surely not something to wish for, but also quite ignorant, which is nothing to be proud of. Anyway:

The need for the code of conduct is clear to me, thanks in part to the efforts of people like the authors of this document.

The principles of the draft code of conduct seem entirely reasonable to me. I could summarise them as "be kind and show respect" -- but kindness and respect have the potential to be subjective and I think the extra detail in the document is useful.

The consequences of a code of conduct violation seem clear and reasonable to me, although I would add "No action (if the team has not been able to determine that a violation has occurred)", which is not the same as the final bullet and seems important to include, since life is analogue and its signal is lossy.

I think the idea of having a team of trained people available to navigate the swamp of poor conduct is a good idea. I do wonder slightly what happens if due to illness, visa problems or other unexpected consequences, it is not possible for three or more team members to attend a meeting. Simply declaring a requirement isn't enough to ensure it will always happen. However unlikely, it seems sensible to think about what would happen in that case.

I have one principal concern with the document, as written.

The RIPE community includes people who are painfully aware of what poor conduct looks like (because they have been subject to it) and also people who have never knowingly experienced it and who hence are poorly-informed.

Setting aside deliberate bad behaviour that I am certain exists and which this code of conduct properly seeks to deal with, there is still the potential for harm between people who don't realise they are being hurtful and those who are hurt as a consequence. This seems like the most difficult kind of interaction to deal with fairly as a mediator and as a community.

This document puts an enormous responsibility on a small team of volunteers to provide that function, and it is not obvious to me that that is fair. This seems to me like hard and painful work; work that has the potential to cause collateral damage to the community if it ever becomes too much for a small pool of volunteers to deal with, and rife with decisions that have the potential to have great personal and professional impact to all people concerned, including the people on the team.

So, I have some thoughts:

1. Perhaps the code of conduct team don't need to take ultimate responsibility for decisions; perhaps in the case where the team has decided that a member of the community has behaved badly and action should be taken, that action (and responsibility for the action) can be taken by the RIPE NCC as the organisation that coordinates the RIPE community's social infrastructure.

(Perhaps this is even prudent, considering that some of the actions that the team might decide should be taken might have legal consequences; I don't think volunteers should have to take legal or other personal risk. There are many jurisdictions to consider and some of them are more litigious than others.)

2. Perhaps the kind of training that is imagined for the code of conduct team could be made available, in some form, for everybody. I would certainly appreciate being educated on the myriad problems faced by others that I am not aware of. Awareness and understanding are surely good bridges towards fostering a safer and more kind environment for everybody.

(That last one in particular just seems like good engineering: you take precautions when you design networks and systems to avoid failure, but you are prepared to deal with failure in case it happens anyway. The draft arguably concentrates on the latter without paying as much attention on the former. I think both are important.)


Joe