[ripe-list] Code of Conduct 3.0

Many of the Malcolm’s concerns are also trouble me quire a bit. So I would be very surprised if there was consensus about the CoC. 

Daniel


---
Sent from a handheld device.

> On 16. Oct 2019, at 14:24, Malcolm Hutty <malcolm at linx.net> wrote:
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> I understand that on Thursday afternoon the RIPE Plenary will be invited
> to adopt “Code of Conduct v3.0”. Unfortunately I must leave Rotterdam at
> lunchtime, so I am writing to share with you my reasons for believing it
> should not be approved.
> 
> Code of Conduct v3.0 proposes the creation of a new entity, the “CoC
> Team” who will be invested with the power to hear allegations of breach
> of the Code of Conduct and decide what sanctions, if any, to apply to
> the community member in violation.
> 
> Planned sanctions include, amongst other things,
> 1.    Not allowing someone to participate further in RIPE Meetings and/or
> other RIPE community spaces, for a set period or an indefinite period
> 2.    A public reprimand
> 3.    Requiring that a public apology is made
> 
> Denying someone the opportunity to participate in RIPE is clearly a
> serious step. Issuing a public reprimand, or requiring a public apology
> (i.e. admission of guilt) is potentially seriously damaging to a
> person’s reputation. Since a public reprimand might make reference to
> the purposes of the Code, including the prevention of sexual harassment
> and racist abuse, and assert that the person was found to have violated
> the Code, but not necessarily say what the individual is alleged to have
> actually done, a public reprimand from the CoC team could have lasting
> impact on a person’s career prospects.
> 
> It is therefore a matter of great importance to every member of this
> community that if such sanctions are ever applied, the most scrupulous
> process is used.
> 
> Unfortunately, in my view the process set out in Code of Conduct 3.0 is
> very far from fit for purpose.
> 
> For a start, given the gravity of the intended sanctions, I am stunned
> to see that the Code neither requires nor suggests that the CoC Team
> should attempt to speak to the accused individual to get their side of
> the story. Indeed, there is no requirement that the accused person is
> even informed of the details of the allegation against them. A public
> reprimand could be the first the subject hears of the matter.
> 
> The right to be heard before being punished is not an obscure legalistic
> procedural device. It is fundamental to basic fairness.
> 
> Granted, a right of appeal has been added to the Code (thank you Daniel
> Karrenberg for your urgent intervention!), but I do not think appeal
> after the fact is sufficient correction to a basically abusive process.
> 
> Although the most egregious, that is far from the only flaw with Code of
> Conduct 3.0. It positively encourages anonymous complaints. Complaints
> are also encouraged not only from alleged “victims”, but also from
> “witnesses”
> 
> The Code promises that the identity of the complainant will not be
> disclosed to the subject of the complaint, potentially making it
> impossible to understand the circumstances or provide an explanation.
> The person submitting a complaint is not disqualified under the Code
> from sitting as a member of the CoC Team adjudicating the complaint.
> Given that the Code also invites witness reports and assures witnesses
> that their reports will not be viewed less favourably because they have
> made multiple reports, it would be entirely consistent with the Code for
> the CoC Team to also act as as a Code of Conduct patrol, making reports
> of violations and then sitting in judgement on their own allegations.
> 
> Thanks to anonymity, nobody outside the CoC team would even know if this
> were occurring.
> 
> There are other problems, but this message is already too long.
> 
> Throughout the Code, the emphasis is consistently on the CoC Team’s
> responsibility to the reporter. There is no such recognition of a
> responsibility to the person ‘under investigation’ – by which I mean,
> the person who is the subject of the complaint; there is actually no
> expectation set in the Code that the CoC Team would actually conduct an
> investigation, rather than proceeding directly to judgement on the basis
> solely of the information contained in the allegation.
> 
> I have described some serious flaws, but in my view, it is not worth
> trying to rescue this proposal with patches to each of them. The
> document as a whole is riddled with bias, and should be abandoned. The
> Diversity Taskforce has demonstrated that it is not an appropriate body
> to be undertaking this work.
> 
> Any serious attempt to create a process for enforcement of a Code of
> Conduct should be predicated on the basis that a grievance and
> disciplinary process (which is what this is) owes a serious duty of
> fairness to all parties, not only to one side.
> 
> Malcolm.
> 
> -- 
>            Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523
>   Head of Public Affairs | web: www.linx.net
> London Internet Exchange |
> 
>                 London Internet Exchange Ltd
>           Monument Place, 24 Monument Street London EC3R 8AJ
> 
>         Company Registered in England No. 3137929
>       Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA