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

Hi Leo, all,

How come we can pretend that the RIPE community is open, inclusive, transparent, etc., if when we do this kind of work, we don't allow volunteer participants to join? How come we can have a CoC that must be respected by all if since day one on the work for this, somebody that volunteered has been excluded?

Let me explain, because only the chairs and the CoC TF knows the context of this up to now.

On October 26th I asked to join the mailing list and the CoC TF. I got a response on 9th November. In my request, I explained that I've made similar work in other RIRs (in that case via policy proposals, still under discussion), and I was during around 12 years the Sergeant-at-arms of the IETF (RFC3005), so clearly, I've some experience on this work.

In the response I was told that the Chairs Team decided about the membership and the CoC TF is not "empowered" to expand its own membership.

So, in summary, we can't enforce a CoC that has been generated in a non-inclusive and in fact discriminatory way.

There was not any information, when the Task Force was created about "rules of participation", "timing" or anything similar, and of course, there is NOTHING in our existing rules, documents, etc., that provides chair or Task Force members the right to EXCLUDE and DISCRIMINATE anyone. I've asked several times to the CoC TF and the chairs about that, and the response, as it has been in other topics such as the violation of the PDP has been "silence".

In Spanish we call this a "theater" or "mummery", I'm not sure if that expression makes sense in English. We continuously talk about openness, transparency and so on, but in reality, we have the chairs that do whatever they want, without respecting rules (or actually, creating their own rules) and ignoring volunteer participants. This is the way we want to encourage participation for long-term participants? How come newcomers will trust that. Let's be serious.

So, is this about getting only "friends" in a TF? How come we can pretend to be inclusive?

I don't know in other countries, but in Spain, if you exclude someone from a group or "club", without a clear previous explanation and engagement rules, which of course, can't be against law, it is called a discrimination, and it is an illegal act.

Besides that, which clearly should have a public and a clear explanation provided (documents that authorize to exclude volunteers from a TF, documents that allow chairs to ignore and don't publish policy proposals, etc.), I've the following points.

0) Generic. I think every section/sub-section must be numbered, it helps to follow the document, provide inputs, etc.

1) Rationale. I think it must be made explicit not only inclusivity, but also a right balance with freedom of expression, openness, transparency and respect to each participant language barriers and cultural differences.

2) Scope. The mailing list have the "forums" as an alternative way to participate. I will not call that a messaging or chat. Maybe you should add a bullet to cover any "communication app or web service". That will cover, I think any way to communicate. Maybe with that wording is no longer necessary to use "messaging or chat" but it is still helpful spell it out.

3) Scope. I don't understand why the PC needs to be consulted. Anything related to the RIPE community must support the same CoC. Otherwise, we need to define an AUP for the mailings list CoC for "a", CoC for "b", etc. If the goal is to be generic for anything related to the community, this doesn't make sense to me.

4) People. When you say "contracted workers", is that including "subcontractors" or need to be spelled out?

5) CoC and National Law. "The CoC Team or RIPE NCC staff may relay the report or make their own if necessary" I don't think this is a matter for the CoC Team, instead the CoC Team must report those cases to the RIPE NCC staff, and the RIPE NCC, must report to authorities. Otherwise, if the NCC has knowledge of a possible illegal activity, is acting as against the law and acting as an abettor and it may have some liability. If an individual knowing about an illegal activity doesn't report it, it is his/her own problem, but in the case of an organization, it is a problem for all the involved "members", board, staff, etc.

6) Unacceptable. We are missing language discrimination. We can't allow that non-native speakers have difficulties to understand what is being discussed or said, because, we have seen that already in several occasions, "presumed jokes or jargon" are frequently used as attacks to non-native speakers.

7) Unacceptable. I don't think "calling people names" is clear for non-native speakers. Is that not include in "insulting"? If telling someone "fat" is within your understanding of "calling people names", it is the same as insulting. In my opinion, having a CoC that uses a non-inclusive language, it is a very bad sign of what we want to enforce ... Is not that bullying? I think it may be clearer to use "Insulting or bullying someone in anyway", instead of "insulting someone" and then you don't need the "calling people names". Note that my comment here may be wrong because I'm not even sure myself about what it means "calling people names".

8) Unacceptable. "Deliberately outing private details about someone without their consent" I will suggest replacing with "Deliberately outing personal data about someone without their consent" I think it is including "more" aspects. Again, this may be my English understanding from how I will say that in Spanish.

9) Unacceptable. "Pushing someone to drink or take drugs". I understand that it is a way to make it explicit, but pushing someone to smoke or eat something that he/she doesn't likes/wants, is the same. Maybe a more generic sentence such as "Pushing someone to do any action that he/she doesn't want".

10) I'm missing a few things which I believe are extremely important and should be made explicit:
	a) Spam, non-solicited information, collecting emails from participant.
	b) Using language or expression that non-native may not understand.
	c) On the other way around, the CoC Team should consider cultural and language differences, otherwise they may miss-interpret something that I'm saying following my native language or common cultural ways and apply wrongly the CoC.

11) I'm also missing something that I believe is key to have included in the same document. What actions can be taken in case of CoC violation. Can those be progressive? For example, if you send an unsolicited email to a list, or interrupt someone presentation, a first-time warning should be sufficient, but if you insist, in the case of a mailing list or similar "communication mean", you may restrict posting rights or moderate for a certain number of weeks and if it comes back, progressively increase the restriction period. In a meeting, or videoconference, you just ask him/her to abandon that session or the full meeting?

In fact, as more I think about that, I believe that the reporting procedures, CoC Team and actions against the violation of the CoC should be in the same document. If not, every section and especially unacceptable behaviors should be numbered, because I don't think all the actions may have the same level of "severity".

Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
 
 

El 18/3/21 18:22, "ripe-list en nombre de Leo Vegoda" <ripe-list-bounces at ripe.net en nombre de leo at vegoda.org> escribió:

    Dear RIPE community,

    There has been relatively little feedback on ths draft Code of Conduct
    so far. We would be grateful if you could share any comments on the
    RIPE Discussion
    List by Friday, 2 April 2021. We welcome suggested changes, but if you
    don’t see problems with the draft then statements of support are also
    helpful. The RIPE Chair Team will evaluate your comments and determine
    whether there is consensus on this draft or additional work is needed.

    Many thanks,

    Leo Vegoda
    On behalf of the RIPE Code of Conduct TF

    On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 5:02 AM Leo Vegoda <leo at vegoda.org> wrote:
    >
    > Dear RIPE community,
    >
    > An updated draft RIPE Code of Conduct (CoC) is now published for your
    > review. As this is intended to cover all participation within RIPE, it
    > applies to interactions over the Internet, mailing lists, as well as
    > in-person at RIPE Meetings.
    >
    > You can find the document here:
    >
    > https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-documents/other-documents/ripe-code-of-conduct/
    >
    > This draft keeps most of the text in v3.0[1], which was developed by
    > the RIPE Diversity TF. It also draws from CoCs that are in use in
    > other communities, including the Python CoC[2]. The biggest change is
    > that the updated draft covers scope and behaviour only. It doesn’t
    > touch on process or the CoC Team – these aspects will be addressed in
    > two separate documents that are still to come.
    >
    > Please review the draft and share any comments on the RIPE Discussion
    > List by Friday, 2 April 2021. We welcome suggested changes, but if you
    > don’t see problems with the draft then statements of support are also
    > helpful. The RIPE Chair Team will evaluate your comments and determine
    > whether there is consensus on this draft or additional work is needed.
    >
    > While we would prefer comments to be shared on the RIPE Discussion
    > List, we recognise that some people might have feedback that they
    > would like to share in private. If you want to provide feedback in
    > private you can contact members of the CoC TF or the RIPE Chair Team
    > directly.
    >
    > Some key changes in this version:
    >
    > - The goal of “a neutral, transparent and open framework for report
    > handling” has been removed and will be covered in the upcoming
    > document that describes process.
    > - The scope is defined as “all participation in RIPE.”
    > - Groups and events with separate governance from RIPE may adopt this
    > CoC but will need to manage their own implementation.
    > - A new section covers how the CoC relates to national law.
    > - A new section lists desired behaviours along with an updated list of
    > unacceptable behaviours. - Both lists are arranged alphabetically, to
    > avoid suggesting a hierarchy.
    >
    > We look forward to reading your thoughts on the current draft.
    >
    > Kind regards,
    >
    > Leo Vegoda
    > On behalf of the RIPE Code of Conduct TF
    >
    > [1] RIPE Meeting Code of Conduct 3.0 - Draft
    > https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/ripe-meetings/ripe-meeting-code-of-conduct-3-0-draft
    > [2] Python Community Code of Conduct https://www.python.org/psf/conduct/




**********************************************
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.