[diversity] *draft* CoC Team doc

We are not commiunicating: My point is that *any* action taken on behalf 
of the community needs a process for appeal and review. This is 
especially true if the action can be perceived as corrective or punitive 
and/or if it involves some form of judgement about behavior.  In these 
cases we better have a well defined process for appeal and review in 
place before someone disagrees with what we are doing. I included the 
examples to make the point that the new process proposes *grave* 
sanctions. I was not addressing the sanctions themselves.

But since we are here:


On 2 Sep 2019, at 14:09, Amanda Gowland wrote:

> Hi Daniel,
>
> On 02/09/2019 14:03, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
>>
>> I consider this absolutely not ready for a consensus call. It 
>> introduces a new process with grave sanctions including
>>
>>  *
>>
>>     “Removing a presentation and video archive from the meeting 
>> website”
>>
> Disagree. If someone violates the CoC in their presentation, they 
> should be given an opportunity to remove the offending material and 
> re-upload. Likewise, if there's a video recording of someone being 
> racist/sexist/homophobic/harrasing (for example), the video should 
> either be removed or have the offending content edited out.

Removing someone’s contribution from a community forum is *serious* 
business in a community that is about exchanging information and 
opinions!

Maybe we should incorporate some of the words you just wrote in the 
draft itself. At the moment it reads like removal is the only option. 
Again: how are disputes with the author solved? Will the CoC team 
dictate the edits? What happens in case of a dispute?


>>
>>  *
>>
>>     “Requiring that the violator leave the meeting/social 
>> immediately
>>     without a refund (as per the RIPE Meeting Terms and 
>> Conditions)”
>>
> This is nothing new. We already state this in the T&Cs for the RIPE 
> Meeting that all attendees agree to in the registration process.

The process proposed *is* new.

>>
>>  *
>>
>>     “Banning attendance for future meetings (in the case of 
>> repeated
>>     violations, violence and extreme violations)”
>>
>> Yet there is no mention at all of appeal, review or redress. This is 
>> not the way the RIPE community should operate.
>>
> This was discussed on Friday with HPH - I'll be adding some text in 
> here re: Appeal...as well as incorporating the rest of his feedback.

Lets hear it!

>>
>> I also suggest to have the language reviewed by the NCC legal team 
>> for legality and precision
>> before considering a consensus call.
>>
> Yes, have already discussed this and that is the plan.

Good to hear.

Thanks.

Daniel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/diversity/attachments/20190902/4c4afcea/attachment.html>