[ripe-list] Proposed Changes to the Draft Code of Conduct Process

Leo, task force members,

let's remember that we have consensus on the code of conduct itself and 
that we are discussing the implementation. Not all ist lost. ;-)

I observe some pretty strong reactions  requesting 'due process' from 
long standing, constructive and productive members of the community. 
This is serious. There is a risk that some of these good people might 
stop contributing if we proceed with this draft procedure document. We 
do not want to loose good people for the sake of being more inclusive.

Upon reflection it appears to me that the requests for 'due process' may 
not come from a desire for a quasi legal process but from a *perception* 
that the the *process*, not the code,  is biased against the community 
member whose behaviour is being reported.

Here are a number of suggestions to address this:

1. Make it explicit that it is part of the process to apply the 
'Discretion to Reject Reports' from the code. It may be sufficient to 
just mention this at the part of the assessment process in step 3.

2. Re-draft the process to focus on stopping the *behaviour* that is 
violating the code of conduct and not on sanctioning people. This is an 
important difference.

3. Add more explicit mechanisms for the person whose behaviour is being 
reported to be heard. This is especially important if more serious 
actions are being considered.  Maybe offer them to choose a member of 
the CoC team to hear their side of the story and add that member to the 
assessment team?

Less important but worth considering: if I understand the proposed 
process correctly, each and every report would lead to the creation of a 
new assessment group. I perceive this as very heavy and resource 
intensive. A perfect DoS target! In my opinion the process should allow 
for some sort of triage should the load get too high. Pragmatism should 
be explicitly allowed. For instance if the load gets high a screening 
team could be assembled from members of the CoC team at least for each 
RIPE meeting or maybe for a certain time period. This screening team 
could then filter out obviously spurious reports and maybe quickly deal 
with minor incidents.

Nit: Improve the 'Introduction' sections with explicit references to the 
other relevant documents such as the CoC itself and a clear scoping of 
the document itself. Maybe rename it 'Scope'?

I appreciate your personal efforts and the efforts of the task force.

Daniel