<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class="">Hi,<br class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On 14 Jun 2019, at 07:09, Daniel Karrenberg <<a href="mailto:dfk@ripe.net" class="">dfk@ripe.net</a>> wrote:</div><div class=""><div class="">Some of these are by-the-way also quite educational about what the<br class="">current draft can lead to, like: "One of the lightning talks contained<br class="">unfortunate phrasing directed towards one of the attendees. Video from<br class="">that lightning talk won’t be published online." No mention of who<br class="">decided this and how. Was it voluntary? This is the kind of censorship<br class="">that we as a community should not want.</div></div></blockquote><br class=""></div><div>I don’t know which conference this was, but it does occasionally happen</div><div>that a talk violates the CoC. Lightning talks are more at risk because they</div><div>tend to have less screening.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>I don’t have the wider context, but I would expect that this decision was</div><div>made by the local Code of Conduct team, according to the response</div><div>guidelines for the conference.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>A Code of Conduct response can not require voluntary compliance from</div><div>the reported person, as that would make the entire process entirely</div><div>ineffective. It’s entirely possible the speaker accepted the decision, but</div><div>even if they did not, that can’t be grounds for then just not taking action.</div><div>People that are removed from venues also often do not agree with that</div><div>decision, but that is a poor reason to just let them stay.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Would you consider <b class="">every</b> case where a talk recording is not published,</div><div>due to CoC violations, to be unwanted censorship? </div><div><br class=""></div><div>In general, the decision process can only be public to a limited extent,</div><div>because otherwise it would risk harm to the involved parties.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>In cases I’ve handled myself, about 80% have the reported person</div><div>entirely agree with the decision, which is always more pleasant. Those</div><div>numbers may not translate to the RIPE community though, because the</div><div>other communities I’ve worked in had done years of extensive inclusion</div><div>work, whereas the RIPE community is just getting started on this.</div><div><br class=""></div><div><blockquote type="cite" class="">The emphasis needs to be on preventing and correcting unacceptable<br class="">behavior and not on sanctioning it. Therefore I *do* believe that a<br class="">community member who apologizes appropriately and does not repeat the<br class="">unacceptable behavior should not be formally sanctioned *by the<br class="">community*. The *community* then has no reason to sanction in this case.</blockquote><br class=""></div><div>I don’t know if I’m understanding you correctly. There are currently a number</div><div>of examples in the response guidelines that suggest immediate removal</div><div>from the space is likely to be appropriate, such as physical assault including</div><div>groping or punching someone.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Are you saying that even in physical assault, there should be no formal</div><div>sanction as long as there is only a single (known) case? Because that would</div><div>mean all 700 attendees are essentially permitted to assault another person,</div><div>as long as they only do it once?</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Even though these are usually crimes, criminal prosecution is not likely to</div><div>be of any help for these cases - they have very little priority, and the first</div><div>moment to make an appointment to file a police report is probably long after</div><div>someone has already left the country. So either we enable a process to take</div><div>action from the community, even the first time, with a very short decision time</div><div>when needed, or we basically accept that physical assault is normal. Which </div><div>is essentially the current situation, because our community is incapable of</div><div>doing anything.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Sasha</div></body></html>