[diversity] *draft* CoC Team doc

On Mon, Sep 02, 2019 at 02:03:53PM +0200, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
>   + “Requiring that the violator leave the meeting/social 
>immediately without a refund (as per the RIPE Meeting Terms 
>and Conditions)”
>
>   + “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.

I support Daniel's statement and:

There is another issue with this process. I don't really care
what is done at meetings, I don't go to those and certainly won't
in the future, but this process is intended to extend to the WG
mailing-lists. Specifically, it removes the WG chairs' mandate to
deal with issues on their WG's mailing list and invests this
mandate in the CoC kommissariat (or whatever it ends up being
called) 

These MLs are where the PDP happens. For all purposes, they are
the "parliament" that makes resource policy which affects more
people than even the European Parliament's decisions do. 
Vesting the power to silence any contribution to the PDP
discussions in an unelected and unaccountable committee fatally
compromises the PDP itself. I for one would not accept any
consensus thus achieved as legitimate and binding if there is
even the possibility of voices having been silenced without my
knowledge. The WG chairs, to the best of my knowledge, have
always struck the correct balance, allowing all contributions
unless persistently off-topic or outright abusive. Moreover, the
community has the option of not "re-electing" a WG chair, should
they fail to discharge their office properly. I cannot see in the
proposed documents, a similar process to hold the CoC cabal to
account.

tl;dr: I claim "parliamentary privilege" for the working-group
mailing-lists and deny that the PDP should be subordinate to a
CoC or its (unaccountable) enforcers.


rgds,
Sascha Luck




Therefore, I claim
"parliamentary privilege" for the WG mailing lists. 


>
>I also suggest to have the language reviewed by the NCC legal 
>team for legality and precision
>before considering a consensus call.
>
>Daniel
>
>
>
>
>On 30 Aug 2019, at 13:13, Amanda Gowland wrote:
>
>>Thanks Hans Petter,
>>
>>Let me work the final few comments into the draft, and then 
>>I'll poke some of the others to make sure they're happy for 
>>us to do that.
>>
>>Amanda
>>
>>On 30/08/2019 11:07, Hans Petter Holen wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>    b) We can ask HPH to declare consensus + open the call 
>>>for volunteers
>>>
>>>
>>>Let me know when you are ready for me to do the last call 
>>>for consensus on the RIPE list.
>>>
>>>Maybe you also want a time-slot in the Community Plenary on Thursday.
>>>
>>>Hans Petter
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>diversity mailing list
>>diversity at ripe.net
>>https://mailman.ripe.net/

>_______________________________________________
>diversity mailing list
>diversity at ripe.net
>https://mailman.ripe.net/