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

Dear Jim, all,

I might have come across as defensive, mistakenly assuming that what is 
needed is more education or clarification...

Let me re-frame the discussion:

"we" are at the stage where we are fine-tuning one of the tools
(for increasing Diversity, Inclusion & Equity - and Justice),
the tool that is "Code of Conduct" procedure.

We are NOT at the stage where we discuss *if* we need CoC;
nor are we at the stage where we talk about "do we have a problem".

This has all been established long time ago: yes, RIPE Community
(just like all other technical communities, just like society)
has problems of inequality, injustice, un-examined privileges for some 
and marginalization, harassment and abuse for others...

... and it has been also established that "we" want to do something to 
solve that. (*)

Solving it on the level of the society does NOT mean that we can stop 
trying to solve it on the levels of RIPE Community (and our place of 
employment , family, school...). We have to solve it on all levels.

The *reasons* why we want is more justice/diversity are: because 
inclusive community will attract better contributions from more creative 
participants, and we will together build better (less harmful?) 
policies, tools, protocols, connections-and-education via IP networking...

On 15/09/2022 23:21, Jim Reid wrote:
> 
> 
>> 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.

 > 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.


As with other complex problems,
there is not one single fix -- it will take a lot of other steps,
as listed here(*), here(*) and here(*), to increase "diversity & 
inclusion" -- CoC is just one of the "tools".

(*)
2016
https://labs.ripe.net/author/shane/measuring-gender-diversity-at-ripe-meetings/
2017
https://labs.ripe.net/author/agowland/diversity-discussions-at-ripe-74/
2018
https://labs.ripe.net/author/agowland/reflecting-back-on-ripe-77-big-gains-on-diversity-initiatives/
2019
https://labs.ripe.net/author/agowland/do-good-at-ripe-78-sponsor-a-diversity-ticket/
2020
https://labs.ripe.net/author/hans_petter_holen/reporting-back-from-ripe-79/
2021
https://labs.ripe.net/author/becha/diversity-matters-at-ripe-83/
2022
https://labs.ripe.net/author/becha/spring-and-summer-events-season-2022/


> 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, 

This is, indeed, a suggestion I agree with -- these positions are both 
the most visible, thus provide role-models -- and hold the (informal) 
power: therefore, increasing diversity there would lead to more 
inclusion & equity.

> 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.

We do have evidence of the state of diversity within RIPE Community 
_without_ the CoC process, for the last 32 years.

There is also evidence from other, similar communities, on the impact of 
CoC procedures on increasing inclusion:

https://wiki.techinc.nl/Ladies_Night#Increasing_the_gender_diversity
https://wiki.techinc.nl/Ladies_Night#Dealing_with_Harassment
https://wiki.techinc.nl/Ladies_Night#Further_Reading_after_34c3

> 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.

Since you asked nicely ("Please explain.")

In short: if there is a procedure for "dealing bad behavior",
it is reassuring & brings feelings of safety to the  people who are 
(systematically) on the receiving end of "bad behavior". If they feel 
safe, that is *one of the prerequisites* for joining RIPE Community. The 
opposite - if there is no CoC (&enforcement), this is a "red flag" for 
vulnerable people.

Longer explanation: I refer you to the literature listed in the links 
above, e.g.:

- security & hackers conference: 
https://www.vice.com/en/article/8q8x3g/female-hackers-still-face-harassment-at-conferences

> Changes that can be made include reliable ways for women to report incidents, and an effective form of enforcement.
> 
> "In my experience, the organizers of a con make a huge difference. If they make it clear they have zero tolerance for harassment or assault, and enforce this policy from the start, it's a big help," said one woman from the infosec industry.
> 
> But beyond codes of conduct, it'll take more fundamental changes for harassment of women to really dissipate from hacking and security conferences.
> 
> "I think what broadly needs to change is really the culture of the industry," Wang said. "The security industry has a little bit of a problem where it's not only male dominated, but it's dominated by a particular kind of personality."

- anarchist & activists groups , implementing "Restorative and 
Transformative Justice" for a long time - and still struggling:
 
https://crimethinc.com/2013/04/17/accounting-for-ourselves-breaking-the-impasse-around-assault-and-abuse-in-anarchist-scenes 


- science: 
https://www.wandering-scientist.com/2015/06/playing-game-rigged-against-you.html 


- "google memo": Taking Male Entitlement Seriously, Aug. 7th, 2017: 
https://tim.dreamwidth.org/2035407.html

- engineering / IETF: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc7776/

> 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.

As I said, this has been dealt with from 2016 to 2022, within,
indeed, another Task Force -- Diversity TF:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/tf/ripe-diversity-task-force

> * 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?

As Gergana pointed out, this argument is falling within multiple logical 
fallacies ;-)

I prefer this quote:

> Fry’s point was that we should not get caught up in the minutia of language, correcting the grammatical glitches we see in public, in the use of our friends, online, etc. Rather, says Fry, we should exult in language, take delight in the feel of the words in our mouths. He even concludes that language is a native born right to all who speak and no one should tell them they have no right to use it, or that they should feel inferior because they “can’t spell broccoli or moccasins.”

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/elflandletters/2019/07/05/the-magic-of-language-stephen-fry-pedantry-and-racism/


 > And for bonus points, the final output from the TF (or whatever)
 > needs to show how their work fixes that problem or problems.

To reply in the same "spirit":

How did this work for the DNS-wg? Are all of the DNS problems fixed now?
Or, at least, DNSSEC? Is there a "final output"?


But to get back to the substance of the argument:

This sort of pedantry is not as such CoC violation,
but is an example of the specific "atmosphere" & "culture".

As a woman, and a not-native speaker, I got used to being target of such 
comments; but as older woman, I am not staying silent about it any more.

https://wiki.techinc.nl/Ladies_Night#More_about_silencing

Changing atmosphere & culture require _deeper_ changes than introducing 
CoC procedures -- CoC is only one of the basic tools.

"Realists" tend to say that we have a $result that we deserve:
https://labs.ripe.net/author/becha/ripe-community-resilience-every-society-has-the-internet-they-deserve/

Deeper changes require empathy, reflexivity about privilege and power 
structures, striving for equity and not "fairness", questioning our 
personal biases and systematic intersectional oppression(s)...

https://labs.ripe.net/author/becha/data-feminism-from-data-ethics-to-data-justice/

In solidarity,
Vesna

-- 
Senior Community Builder, RIPE NCC
Working times: Monday-Thursday 10-16 CEST
https://labs.ripe.net/author/becha/