[ripe-list] what is the new CoC intended to fix?

> On 14 Sep 2022, at 20:53, Vesna Manojlovic <BECHA at ripe.net> wrote:
> 
> Many *women* leave tech industry because of abuse, or micro-aggressions.
> We are missing out on the contributions by persons of color, young people, "people with thin skin"...

With respect Vesna, these problems *cannot* possibly hope to be fixed with RIPE's Code of Conduct. Or anyone else's CoC for that matter. The concerns you raise are of course very real. However they are complex and have too many structural/societal/cultural causes that are both out of scope and far beyond RIPE's capabilities. For instance, the lack of women in the tech industry probably originates from few women/girls following STEM subjects at school and further education. So the tech sector starts from a bad bad place and inevitably goes downhill from there. Sigh. And hey, both of us are persons of colour too - as are the other ~7B people on this planet.

A better way for RIPE to make a difference here might be to require a more diverse and representative presence across the board: presenters, PC & TF membership, WG co-chairs, etc. That IMO would have more tangible results than fine words and fancy processes around some CoC. Maybe you disagree. But that's to be answered for both of us with an objective evidence-led approach rather than going by gut feel or best guesses.

I am both surprised and very disappointed that you (or the TF?) seem to want to the CoC to fix these deep-seated and complex problems. Which are for society in general, not RIPE IMO.

The CoC is supposed to deal with bad behaviour* at RIPE meeting - no more, no less. There is nothing in the existing or proposed new CoC's remit which deals with the issues you mentioned. So I don't understand how or why they have somehow become topics for the CoC or the various task forces to address. Please explain.

If the new CoC's authors/supporters have other intentions or aspirations beyond dealing with bad behaviour at RIPE meetings, IMO they need to be far more transparent about those objectives. That would mean a radically different TF charter and a far clearer problem statement is needed. And for bonus points, the final output from the TF (or whatever) needs to show how their work fixes that problem or problems.

* The correct word here is "behaviour", not "behaviours". Behaviour is a mass noun which does not get pluralised. So is the word "aggression". Or is this sort of language pedantry about to be classed as a CoC violation?