[diversity] [ripe-list] Updated Draft RIPE Code of Conduct Published for Community Review

Hi Nick,

    > 1) Inputs from the legal team, should be open and transparently presented to the community.

    Task forces, committees, etc have reporting structures which allow them 
    room to do what they are tasked to do, and then report back.

    There's no general principle which mandates that they need to report 
    every single input, and doing so would slow down their work output to a 
    crawl.

-> Agree, but that doesn't preclude to have that information open. I believe at some point it was mention that there are minutes available, I was not able to find them, so that's why I'm asking for.


    > 2) As with any other documents, policies, etc., Community should be able to provide any inputs that we believe necessary, and not just "general principles or specific questions".

    I don't believe any tf / committee has said that they don't want 
    community input.  Most, or indeed all of them go out of their way to 
    solicit this.

    That's why we have mailing lists like, for example, diversity at .

-> Exactly, and that's what I wanted to ask for clarification. I may have been only the wording from Mirjam email which was not clear to me.

    > I want to insist in asking what is the rational for excluding anyone from a TF,

    Looking at this from a different point of view, you're asking whether 
    people have the right to barge their way on to a task force or committee.

    Could you point us to any TF structure or committee structure anywhere 
    in the world which accepts this on a point of principle?

-> You are reversing the issue, in the wrong way. Any TF or committee can have rules of engagement or participation or whatever you want to call them *of course*. BUT those rules are explicit and clear since day one, not *after*. For example, we can say "this is the required expertise, or the maximum number of members (first in?), or a combination of those".

I don't think we have a RIPE document that say that one of the attributions of the chairs is to constitute committees or TFs in a *closed* way, decided "on the spot" and arbitrarily managed. If we have it, then can't say anymore we are an open community, because that's discriminatory.

What I've been asking for since I was denied participating in the CoC TF is very simple: what is the document that shows those rules. You don't think that's sensible to ask? Do you think "no response" is a sensible response?

If we don't have those rules set and openly published *before* the call for participants of the TF starts, then they may be changed across the duration of the TF. This is a clear sign of "arbitrarity", if I can say so in English. It is an untrustable situation, common in dictatorial regimes, not open communities. I don't think this is what we want in this community. Correct me if I'm wrong.

    Nick




**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.