[ripe-list] CoC and the PDP

Leslie,

On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 08:00:15AM -0700, Leslie wrote:
>California, 5 and 6am conference calls are pretty difficult.  I cannot
>stay silent on this matter, and watch the community that I love accuse
>the diversity WG of trying to destroy RIPE.

a recurring thread in these CoC debates is that intent doesn't
matter, only outcomes do. In that spirit, it doesn't matter
whether the effects on the PDP are intentional or just an
unfortunate side effect...

>Sascha, you may not realize that RIPE already has a code of conduct,
>https://ripe77.ripe.net/on-site/code-of-conduct/ - where attendees may
>be asked to leave a meeting and "other actions" may be taken.  I like
>the new draft because it clarifies how and what actions may be taken.

I should clarify again that my email is solely concerned with the
PDP which, in RIPE, happens on mailing lists. RIPE Meetings and
what the CoC means for them will be the subject of another email.

Under the existing CoC, there is no "enforcement team" and no
(explicit) jurisdiction over WG mailing lists. It is currently up
to the WG chairs to "keep order" on their MLs and in the 20 or so
years I've been following WG lists, have - I think - done a good job. 

>I am not comfortable with your proposal of the entire WG chair
>committee being set as the "jury" for these cases.  The WG chairs are
>a group of people selected for their expertise and willingness to give
>back to the community in specific technical areas, not for their
>willingness to go to trainings of how to handle harassment cases and
>knowing how to treat these very difficult and emotional situations
>with empathy and confidentiality.

I don't think this is a possibility on a mailing list. Everything
there happens in the open and every subscriber can see what goes
on. If there is outright harassment, it will be immediately
obvious what is happening. I think I've seen something like it
only once and the chairs in question took actions then. 

>I don't believe this kind of situation has ever happened at RIPE, but I don't know if it has,

I'm led to believe that at least one similar incident *has*
occurred at a RIPE meeting. There is no reason to think that the
RIPE community is any better or worse than NANOG or any other
community that is basically open to anyone.

>This is not the kind of story I ever wanted to share with anyone
>beyond my closest circle of friends.  I felt a combination of scared
>and embarrassed (what if it was all my fault and I led him on?).  I
>count 28 WG chairs -- many of whom I know personally and respect and I
>want them to have the highest regard for me professionally.  If they
>heard the story, do you really think that 28 people would keep that a
>secret?  Do you think I want them all to know how I acted, as well
>that I allowed myself to be put into that awkward situation?  Of
>course not.  Does this story change your opinion of me?  If so, that's
>the reason why I did not share it before now.

Again, I can't see a situation like this happening on a mailing
list - and if it did, it would be far from confidential.

>All of us are human, and all of us, myself included, have acted in
>ways we're not proud of.  I can think of one incident where I made
>what I thought of as the time as a funny joke, which in fact was
>hurtful to the person I said it to.  I think that many of us are
>afraid that we will be banned from RIPE because we do stupid things.
>However, you are assuming that your fellow RIPE attendees are
>vindictive people -- instead of people who are willing to talk to the
>person (in this case me) who was an asshole, tell them why they were
>hurt, and give the asshole a chance to apologize for their behavior
>and try to be a better person.

It is what I would do, and if someone persisted I can afford to
ignore them. However, RIPE is a broad church and, like any
community, it contains people who strike me as petty and
vindictive. My concerns are largely with giving these people a
tool to strike from cover to remove their "enemies"
from the community and suppress dissent.


> The CoC is really meant for cases like
> the story above that I shared.

I happen to agree, but I am not comfortable with including
jurisdiction over participation in the PDP in this proposal.
In the "real world" (at least in civilised, democratic
societies), no matter how much of an arsehole one may be, one
still gets to tick one's box on the ballot paper. (convicted
traitors may lose the franchise but I don't think that is an
issue for this CoC)
>
>Leslie Carr

rgds,
Sascha Luck