Code of Conduct BoF
.
RIPE 82
.
18 May 2021
.
17:30 (CEST)
OLAF KOLKMAN: Welcome to the Code of Conduct BoF. In the next hour, we will be talking about the Code of Conduct. I presume that, after so many days of using Meetecho ‑ well, actually, two days of using Meetecho ‑ this week, you all know how Meetecho works, how you can interact with us. Just quickly, it's about the bottom buttons on top of here. One of them is for asking questions, the one with the question mark, those are the questions that we will read out, but you can also get into the queue with the buttons over there, video and audio. My understanding is that if you only press 'video', only we'll see your mugshot. You have to press 'audio' as well if you want to participate. That's at least my understanding.
.
As I said, we are discussing the Code of Conduct here. A version of the Code of Conduct has been posted, and there has been quite some discussion around it. In this meeting, we want to focus on three questions, and Leo will set up those questions in a small presentation also capturing what has been done so far and will spend about 15 minutes on each thing. We have limited time, only an hour.
.
I haven't introduced myself. My name is Olaf Kolkman, I work for the Internet Society, and I have not been involved with the community for a couple of years really actively, so I'm really back ‑‑ glad and proud to be back helping the community out with this BoF.
.
So, we have a little time. Without further ado, I would like to invite Leo to present what we have done so far, and what the questions are that we want to address in this BoF. Thank you.
LEO VEGODA: Hello everyone. Thank you very much, Olaf, for the lovely introduction.
.
So, I want to bring everyone up to speed to make sure that we are all at the same place.
.
So, this is a recap of the Code of Conduct Task Force. The Code of Conduct Task Force was created as an outcome of the Diversity Task Force which published version 3 of the Code of Conduct. (Inaudible ‑ connection lost) one is the Code of Conduct. The other two are the focus of this BoF session, the Code of Conduct team selection and the reporting and operational procedures for the Code of Conduct team.
.
So, I'm just going to quickly run through who the taskforce members are.
.
Brian Nisbet, Me, Denesh, Salam, and, from the RIPE NCC, Athina and Anthony, who have provided us with fantastic support and we are very grateful for their assistance, and, all together, we delivered a draft Code of Conduct which was published for review and feedback earlier this year. We published it on the website, we announced it on the RIPE discussion list, and the Diversity Task Force list. We asked for feedback to the RIPE discussion list. We got over 50 messages, discussing the draft; they were mostly supportive. They came from 18 people. And our task at the moment is to update the draft. When that draft has been updated, we will then publish the update. We are targeting the end of June, and we will be communicating the rationale for the changes that we're making to the draft, tying them back to the discussion that was had.
.
In this session, we're looking forward to the next steps. These are the things that we want your input on, and this is why we have asked Olaf to chair this session, and he has kindly agreed, because, as the task force members, we want to really focus on listening to the input from the community so that we can really make sure that as we go and put together the drafts for the next two deliverables. They are going to reflect what it is that the community feels is important.
.
So the three questions that we are focusing on today are:
.
What kind of team is needed for the Code of Conduct team?
.
How should we balance process and speed?
.
And what kind of process will be required to update the Code of Conduct or its processes?
.
So, those are the three questions that we have for today. At this point, I'm going to turn off my video and audio, hand the chair back to Olaf and he will take us forward from here. And if you just tell me when to advance the slides, I will advance the slides.
OLAF KOLKMAN: Perfect. Three types of questions, and I think it would be reasonable to spend about 15 minutes on each of them.
.
The rules of the game, so to speak, is, if you ask a question in the chat, I will read it out. If you are in video or audio queue, I will give you the microphone, but please try to keep your questions short and to the point. Don't make long questions. I will turn the microphones off in ‑‑ after around two minutes, or give you a strong signal that you should stop your intervention, because then we have time for the task force members to reply and have other people ask questions too. So that's sort of the rules of the engagement game.
.
And to start off with that first ‑‑ the first question, and perhaps I'm going to ask a question to ‑‑ can you forward the slide?
.
So the question is: What do we need from a Code of Conduct team? What's the team size? What type of diversity, language and location and more? What are the time commitments that we actually expect from such a team? And what are the training requirements? What do people need to know before getting into the job and doing this responsibly?
.
I would actually like to ask Leo to give a little bit of context around the role of the Code of Conduct team so that we all know what we are talking about. What is the purpose of the Code of Conduct team? When do they spring into action? And those type of things, so that we can actually get to those questions.
.
LEO VEGODA: Thank you very much, Olaf. So, the Code of Conduct team is the team that is going to implement the Code of Conduct. So, at the moment, we have the trusted contacts, Vesna and Rob, and if there is an issue with the ‑‑ if there is an issue with behaviour, you can approach the trusted contacts and they will do their best to resolve things for you.
.
The reason for the Code of Conduct team and the process is to bring some formality to this so that we have a larger team which means that there is going to be a need for a little bit more structure, because one of the things that is changing is currently the Code of Conduct covers meetings, and the new scope for the Code of Conduct, which was very well received on the list, was that this is a code of conduct for all participation in RIPE, and that means that this isn't something that the trust contacts do twice a year for a short amount of time; it's something that could require some participation at any point in the year. And it could be in relation to an e‑mail message sent to a mailing list, it could be in relation to an inter‑sessional event, or it could be in relation to something that happens at a RIPE meeting.
.
So we're looking at a greater scope of behaviour, this is covered by the Code of Conduct, and that means we have a greater demand on the people who are supporting its implementation, and at that point, I think I should stop speaking because I don't want to eat up too much time.
OLAF KOLKMAN: There is a question from Peter Koch in the chat. Peter, if you want to get in the queue, I would be happy to give you the microphone, but given that queue doesn't light up for me, if I'm looking at the right place, at least ‑‑ no, I'm going to ask that question. I have to get a little bit used to the interface here.
Peter asks: "Where was the decision made about the if?"
.
So the "if" of the Code of Conduct team, so that we can now discuss the how, because that seems to be what the discussion is about now. Do you want to address that question, Leo?
LEO VEGODA: Sure. So the "If" comes from here and I am coming back to slide 2. This is the Charter that was given to the task force, and it was decided by the RIPE Chair that there should be a Code of Conduct team and that the task force should develop a document that describes how that team will be selected and processes for the operations and reporting from the team.
OLAF KOLKMAN: I cannot tell whether that satisfactorily answers Peter's question, but I assume he will add a clarifying question if that is needed in the queue.
.
Vesna, I will give you the microphone and the camera. Vesna, you are a member of the current team. Perhaps you can also, in addition to the comment that you want to give, give a little bit of your experience; what is the actual time commitment and what is your experience with training and those type of things?
VESNA MANOJLIVIC: So, okay, I will first answer this question. I am part of the Trusted Contacts Team and we have been three for a while, with some overlap in times and now there is just two of us. And the time that we needed to put into reacting to complaints was very, very small, because we did not receive a lot of complaints. We did receive a training, it was paid by the RIPE NCC, and it was the training for the role of confidant, that's a very Dutch thing, and it's very different from the Code of Conduct enforcement team, I am putting the inverted commas about it because we still didn't agree on what we are going to call it, it's better not to call it enforcement, but something like that. And so I would like to come back to the original question, which is: What do we need from the Code of Conduct team?
.
And that actually has been answered in many other communities already. So, I think we should just follow their lead and do what the IETF did and Python and I think Debian and some more communities.
.
Also on the list we had a discussion on this in August 2019, so there were a lot of suggestions, and I think the current team maybe could look at that and choose what they think is appropriate and also based on the discussion that we are going to have today.
.
And from my personal experience, I would say that the team size should be larger than three, so about five people, because it's a volunteer job and people have other things to do. So it does take attention and energy even if it's not a lot of time and so it's good to have backups.
.
I think the people, the composition of the team should be volunteers from the community, and yeah, for diversity of language and location and gender and experiences, and also other things like neurodiversity and cultural sensitivities, it would be very important to cover all kinds of aspects and access of diversity, but it will depend on the volunteers that we can get, or recruit.
.
The time commitment; again, it used to be very little, but if we become more successful in making people reassured that if they talk with the Code of Conduct team, there should be a verb there, but I don't know which one, so the dealing with ‑‑ dealing with ‑‑ not even complaints, I'm trying not to be very negative, but that's what it is, basically, people would complain to the Code of Conduct team if somebody has violated the terms of the Code of Conduct, or if they feel hurt. So it will take more time during the meetings, basically, but then we are already there, so it shouldn't be the people who are volunteering for other functions, it's too much work to do all things.
.
And the training also exists. I can copy some of them in the chat later from the regional mailing list and some other websites where I collect these links. And without having my RIPE NCC staff hat on, but a community member, I think that this should be paid by the RIPE NCC as the event organiser and the platforms maintainer where these discussions are happening, so the team for enforcing the rules of the Code of Conduct should be trained at the expense of the organisation that actually has funding. So that's my answers.
OLAF KOLKMAN: And as Rob says, training isn't for [speaking Dutch] training. That would be the Dutch pronunciation of that type of training.
VESNA MANOJLIVIC: Yes.
OLAF KOLKMAN: Thank you, Vesna. Gergana asks a question: "Just curious" ‑‑ so, Vesna, please enter yourself in the queue again so you can answer ‑‑ "does your job as a trusted contact include doing investigation, which I assume is needed for enforcement? Did your training include doing investigations? And if not, are there plans to have such training for the team who will engage in charge of enforcement?"
.
So questions about engagement. I am trying to find out if I can get Vesna to speak again.
VESNA MANOJLIVIC: Thanks for your question, Gergana. So the short answer is no. We, as a [speaking Dutch] we are not supposed to be doing investigations. Our job was to support the person who had come to us and explain where they could go with their complaint. So, we were only supposed to be keeping everything confidential and so we would not be investigating if their complaint is true or not. We are just supposed to believe them and be on their side. So that's the difference between the [speaking Dutch] and the Code of Conduct team and there, as far as I am experienced with the other Code of Conduct teams and rules, it's more about mediation rather than investigation, because these things are not about breaking the law; it's more about people's feelings being hurt. And so that's what the Code of Conduct would have to deal with ‑‑ yeah, in my opinion, but it is on Code of Conduct team and the community to decide what is actually going to be their task.
OLAF KOLKMAN: So what you are saying ‑‑ what I get from that is that mediation would actually be a training requirement?
VESNA MANOJLIVIC: Again, not only mediation. So, I can supply some text later. So there are multiple avenues where, like, a person who complains can go to. Like, first, being encouraged to talk to the person that they have a conflict with; the second one is mediation; and the third one is the actual ‑‑ like a conflict resolution. So the Code of Conduct team can actually have the training in the spectrum of these things, and again, they would have to choose which one, or how to deal with all of them. And there are some very specialised trainings for dealing with, like, violations of trust or Code of Conduct violations or mediation, stuff like that. So, they do exist.
OLAF KOLKMAN: Thank you. I suggest you hang around for a while so that if there is more questions, that we don't have to do this then.
VESNA MANOJLIVIC: I see it already. So Harry was asking: "Being on the side of the person who has complained, what happens if they both complain?" That's why we have two people. So we covered this scenario ‑‑ at least two people ‑‑ and in an ideal situation, if somebody comes to me, I'm not even supposed to tell Rob Evans who came to me, so that the other person can go to him and so that they can both be helped by these [speaking Dutch].
OLAF KOLKMAN: I actually suggest that people ask their questions in the question part of the chat, otherwise it's very hard to manage.
.
Daniel: "You expanded on the question of Peter Koch, where he asked did we already have consensus on the code itself? And is point 1 of the Charter already done?"
I'd like to repeat sort of what Leo said or paraphrase what Leo said. Comments have been coming in. They will be incorporated to the current text. That will be fed back to the community on the list with a point‑by‑point address al of the points that were raised. I would presume that, after that, there will be some sort of a consensus call making sure that everything has been addressed, and I also presume that we are having this conversation based on a general trend in the conversation.
.
But, perhaps Leo, if you have a different vision on this, or anybody on the task force team, please expand.
LEO VEGODA: Olaf, I think you have said it very clearly. Our intention is that we are going to publish an updated draft. Our target date is before July, and when we publish it, we will explain the context of the changes, and we'll go and say we heard this, we changed that, and, at that point, there will be some discussion and it is up to the RIPE Chair whether there is consensus or not. That's not a decision that's taken by the task force. Our job is to make a recommendation based on the best of our ability, but we don't get to grade our own homework.
OLAF KOLKMAN: I believe that is the job of the RIPE Chair, isn't it?
LEO VEGODA: Yes.
OLAF KOLKMAN: I would like to ‑‑ because we are now around 15 minutes on this topic, I would like to go to the next question, which means that somebody has to advance the slide.
.
Process and speed:
.
So we will have, would say, requests coming in to the Code of Conduct that might be based on something that happens online, it might be based on something that happens during a meeting, and what would be a reasonable timeline for investigation and report with respect to whether things are online or in the course of an event? And obviously when there are appeals, how should they be handled? Is that by the same team? Is that by a different individual? Or should that actually be a completely different process? I'm not quite sure if that is addressed in any way in the current document. Perhaps that is a question that we should first answer. Leo, is there anything about appeals in the current document?
LEO VEGODA: The draft that we published was focused solely on the Code of Conduct. It doesn't mention anything about process, and it doesn't mention anything about implementation. That's going to be in a separate document, and that's what we're listening to the community for now. So in order to guide our work, we would like to hear from the community what they feel is important and what kind of direction should we be going.
OLAF KOLKMAN: I would like to open the mic for that, although I have a question from Daniel, which is about process. He is asking "Leo, does that mean that anyone who thinks that we should not have a Code of Conduct team, they should speak up now, or at least soon?"
.
I am not going to answer that specifically. If there is time left at the end of this BoF, then I'm willing to entertain any AOB questions, and that might be one of the AOB points that are being made, but I would like to focus this session on the three questions that are in front of us.
.
But for the detail of that question, Leo, does Daniel still have time to argue that a Code of Conduct team might not be needed?
LEO VEGODA: That's not a question that I, as the Chair of the Code of Conduct Task Force, can answer. That's a question that needs to be addressed to the RIPE Chair team because that is part of our Charter. So, it's not a decision that was made by the task force, and so it's kind of a meta‑question.
OLAF KOLKMAN: I see Daniel entering into the queue, so I'll give him the mic.
DANIEL KARRENBERG: A total misunderstanding. I'm not arguing we shouldn't have a Code of Conduct team; I am just trying to understand what Peter Koch asked, and you have given a bit of an answer. So, it's not my argument we shouldn't have one. I just wanted to make sure that that gets put and Leo (inaudible ‑ connection lost) part of the ‑‑ for this part of the Charter already, so, thank you. That's it, basically.
OLAF KOLKMAN: Is there still time to provide feedback on the first draft? I think is a paraphrasing.
LEO VEGODA: Well, we are still updating it. While we already have a lot of input, if there was significant new input, then of course we would listen to it because what would be the point in not listening to it? So, if someone has something significant that has not already been said, then please send it to the RIPE discussion list, and we will pay attention.
OLAF KOLKMAN: A question in the question queue from Jordi:
.
He already mention this is on the list. He says he doesn't think that we can separate this topic in three different documents ‑ the Code of Conduct itself, the process and the penalties, or whatever. Alternatively, we can work in three documents separately but then do a single consensus adoption for all of them, because otherwise there are inferences among the different documents that may not be resolved and we may need to come back to the previous already‑consensuated [sic] document, update it and call for consensus again."
.
Leo, want to comment on that? Three documents, if they have weird interactions you might need to go back to a previous one?
LEO VEGODA: I think that what he says is absolutely right, that we don't know until we actually try it, what's going to happen. And so, yes, there probably will need to be a consensus call for the package, and I believe that was something that was brought up before. But also, looking forward to the future, and this is the next question that's coming up, we recognise that we are not going to deliver the perfect package right now, and, after some experience, there will be a need to deliver improvements, and so that's one of the reasons we have a question coming up, which is: What should be the process for identifying and agreeing on improvements?
OLAF KOLKMAN: So how to create a living document is how I would paraphrase that question. And that's indeed the next question that is on the list.
.
And my understanding is that part of the motivation for that is that you would like to have, by the next meeting, already a team in place to work with, is that a correct assumption?
LEO VEGODA: We would like to know where we're going. Whether it is possible to recruit and train a team to have done the implementation by the next meeting, I don't know. That's going to depend on whether the updated draft is one that reaches consensus, and then once we have done that, when we produce a draft on what the team should look like and what the process should look like, whether there is consensus on that.
.
Also, it's perhaps worth me noting that the RIPE NCC is currently doing some practical investigation for the tooling that would be required to make sure that everything complies with any legal requirements regarding data management, that sort of thing. So in order to actually get up and running, we might need to have that tooling delivered, and I don't know what the timing on that would be. The RIPE NCC has started looking at those requirements, but of course it's not practical for them to complete that analysis until we actually have something much more concrete for them to work with.
OLAF KOLKMAN: I see Jordi in the questions ‑‑ I saw a request from Gergana to contribute. I'll get back to you, Gergana, in a bit. Jordi already gave an answer to the next question in the queue, which I don't want to keep behind now. He says: "Updating any RIPE document is already defined in the RIPE PDP".
.
And Daniel argues that, from the discussion on the mailing list, he sees a lot of support for separating the Code of Conduct itself and the enforcement support structure." For the record he disagrees with Jordi. The PDP does not apply to any RIPE document. Do we need to read that? So that's part of the discussion of the next document I hope that Gergana will have some ‑‑ some proposals or answers to the question that we are asking now
GERGANA PETROVA: I work for the RIPE NCC. I had sent some answers to the list already, so the reason that I find this discussion quite important is because one of my roles as a staff member at RIPE NCC is the RACI programme that brings young academics to the RIPE meeting, those are mostly newcomers, and several of them, over time, have shared with me stories, and, you know, like, sometimes I feel almost, at least partly, personally responsible because, you know, I brought them to the meeting, and so, like, I feel personally invested in what happens with this. Just to answer the questions that are on the screen. Reasonable time frame, it's very difficult for me to have an informed opinion about this, but, I mean, obviously I would say, especially if we are at the meeting, as soon as possible, if there is a team that can, at the meeting, do something while the people are still there, while potential witnesses are still there, take the opportunity, because, you know, doing that over mail a month later when memories fade, it's just an opportunity. So I think maybe for things at the meeting, we almost need to have like a separate procedure with much more urgent deadlines.
.
Outside of the meeting, I think, you know, especially for minor problems, you are going to have most of them, you know, reported after the meeting. I don't know, like ‑‑ and this is just a very personal opinion, but I think it would be nice to have some sort of confirmation e‑mail within three working days, like "Thank you, we have received your complaint", and maybe like a standard template of form, "This is the procedure that's going to follow..." and then, you know, within two weeks, to inform the complainant what is the persons within that team that are responsible to handle that particular investigation, so, like, they don't feel like then I e‑mailed something, I received something after three days and then I didn't hear back for months.
.
So, after two weeks, they would know at least the people responsible, and then as the investigation is going on, maybe, you know ‑‑ I mean, I don't even have any idea how long such an investigation can happen, I guess it also depends on how quickly witnesses respond, but it would be nice if at least every month they get some sort of an update like, you know, this is what we have done, we are still waiting for a response, but, just, you know, have ‑‑ keep on communicating with the complainant so that they don't get the feeling like, oh, I e‑mailed and then, you know, nothing happened in eight months.
.
As for deadline, I really have no idea. I mean, obviously as soon as possible, but that's just wishful thinking, so I don't know what sort of a deadline would be good, and I wonder if some of our partner organisations that have some Code of Conduct and maybe enforcement procedures, have more experience in this. I guess it also really depends on the nature of the complaint, you know, it's similar to like in law enforcement, can you say if there is deadline for law enforcement to conclude an investigation. I don't know if there is such a thing, but in any case, I think it should be something reasonable.
.
As for appeals, we can take this from the law enforcement. I don't know how, like, if there is judgement against you, I think you have a month to appeal or something like that. We can ‑‑ I don't know ‑‑ I would suggest a month. But this is like very personal opinion. I am definitely not a legal expert or anything like this. This is just a suggestion.
.
And I would really be curious what other community members have to say about this. So that is not just my opinion.
OLAF KOLKMAN: Let's not argue whether it's three days or two days, but you say are there days for first response? Are there weeks for follow‑up? And are there months for regular update? That sort of thing.
GERGANA PETROVA: Yeah.
OLAF KOLKMAN: I think that the question about how how should abuse be handled was not a question about timeline? Can I clarify that, Leo, that is more a question about what entities should be in the loop and how do you organise that, that's the question you are asking?
LEO VEGODA: Well, we were asking this question partly because something might arise on the mailing list. It could happen outside of business hours. It could happen over a holiday. And, of course, there are different holidays in different countries across the region, and we have people who participate in RIPE from basically everywhere in the world.
OLAF KOLKMAN: So the question is about the speed and the process of the appeal.
LEO VEGODA: Yeah. You know, we want people to feel cared for, and what does that require?
OLAF KOLKMAN: Cool. Daniel, I am going to give you the word.
DANIEL KARRENBERG: Okay, let me speak to the questions on the slide. Before I do that, I would ask people not to use the word 'complainant'. I think we need to have a better word, because 'complainant' has a negative connotation, and it needs to be reworded. That's just as an aside.
.
Very generally, I think that the question about process speed and these type of things, is something that has a tendency to legalise the way we interact in RIPE. And I think we should consider defining the process more in terms of what is our tradition and what is expected behaviour, again, of people? What I would expect if there is a conflict in general, and of course ‑‑ if there is a conflict in general, that ‑‑ the history and tradition in RIPE is that one tries to address it between the people concerned. If that's not possible, one tries to get support from other members of the community that are sort of close to the conflict and the people involved. If that doesn't work, one tries to get support from the leadership, and that can be Working Group Chairs, that can be a specific team or something like that. And if that doesn't solve the problem, one refers it in the end to the RIPE Chair.
.
And the buck has to stop somewhere, and I would argue that the escalation should stop at the RIPE Chair. If even a sort of Code of Conduct‑related conflict cannot be resolved there, then there are mechanisms outside of RIPE, like for instance the legal system, to resolve these conflicts, but we should not go into the fallacy of trying to replicate the legal system. I think that's a very ‑‑ it's a very ‑‑ so, rather, we should describe on how ‑‑ what our tradition is, what the accepted and expected behaviours are in a process of resolving a conflict, and we should actually have it stopped relatively quickly inside RIPE. And then if it's so brave that it cannot be resolved inside RIPE, I think we should defer to other means. We shouldn't become a conflict resolution organisation for its own sake. Thank you.
OLAF KOLKMAN: Thank you, Daniel. That was clear guidance. And I don't think I thanked Gergana for her feedback.
.
Vesna, I will give you the microphone in a bit. But Harry Cross said in the chat: "Some sort of anonymous lessons learned are published every so often to reflect on incidents that involved Code of Conduct breaches and some sort of statement about what was done and what can be done better."
.
So continuous learning should be part of the procedures, I think is what he argues.
.
Vesna, there you go.
VESNA MANOJLIVIC: Thank you. That's already part of the procedure with the trusted contacts. We report about the stints that we have heard about that people approach us to ‑‑ during the RIPE meeting to the RIPE Chair, and then in the Community Plenary on a Friday, at every RIPE meeting, the RIPE Chair says where the complaints are noted and how they were dealt with. Again, that's because we were receiving very, very few complaints. It was easy to kind of report on that, and finish it during the RIPE meeting.
.
And I would like to say that I respectfully disagree with Daniel's suggestion. I think it would be good to have many people trained in, whichever way we choose to proceed with the Code of Conduct enforcement, let's call it that way, until we come up with a better word, because I would say that the way how we have been dealing with things until now did not improve the diversity as much as we wanted to. So maybe this is not the approach, but then we should go with another approach, which is maybe to have a diversity statement or some other goals. It's just that, in a lot of other communities, people choose not to come to a conference which does not have either a Code of Conduct statement or very clear description of how are complaints, even if it's that a negative word, but bad things do happen, how is this being dealt with? And we have to document that and make it accessible and not keep it as in, oh, you know who to talk with. Because the newcomers don't know who to talk with.
OLAF KOLKMAN: I think that Daniel wants to clarify what he just said.
DANIEL KARRENBERG: Misunderstanding. I am not saying we shouldn't document. I think we should document our tradition so that it is accessible to newcomers. We should also document it very clearly: Here is what you do, here is what everybody is supposed to do. Not just the complainant, but this is the behaviour that we have in resolving conflicts. But what I'm arguing is, we should avoid the legalese, enforcement, kind of attitude, that is my one important argument; we should rather say this is how we do this, and explain it. And the second is that we should aim for a finite quickly running process rather than a drawn‑out talking about weeks, months kind of thing, and at some point we should realise that if it escalates beyond a certain point, it cannot be resolved in RIPE any more and we should basically say we tried our best to resolve this and it ends here, you have to use other means, because it's not our main goal to ‑‑ it costs us too much, yeah. But I'm not arguing for, saying hey, you know, I am arguing for clearly describing what happens but not in a try to copy a legal system.
OLAF KOLKMAN: Quick reply from Vesna.
VESNA MANOJLIVIC: I see it as a Working Group Chair role. So it's not a legal role, it's a person whose temporarily voluntary function is to deal with this specific aspect of something that happens at a meeting. So if it's IPv6, it should be dealt there. If it's racism, it should be dealt with by this person who is actually trained and knows what to do about it.
.
Then, coming back to everybody should do that, I come from a country where, if everybody is responsible, nobody is responsible. So we have to make somebody responsible for this.
OLAF KOLKMAN: I don't think you necessarily say two different things, at least that's not what I hear. I think you say the same thing but with a slightly different tone and perspective.
.
I'm going to look at Leo and ask if he has sufficient out of this discussion to proceed?
LEO VEGODA: I think, you know, we have got what we have got, and one of the things that I'm hoping from this discussion is that, of course, we will report it. That might inspire more input on the RIPE discussion mailing list, and we very much encourage people to share their thoughts on the RIPE discussion mailing list as well as coming to the microphone now if they would like to speak.
.
So, we would love to hear more people speaking now, but if you have a thought tomorrow, please send it to the mailing list.
OLAF KOLKMAN: That brings us to the next question, because we still have one question to talk about, and that's the process.
.
What process we should use for the Code of Conduct and how should the Code of Conduct team improve its processes over time? Those are two different questions. The update of the Code of Conduct process has, of course, to do with the three different documents that we just discussed. And I want to catch up with some of the comments that Jordi made.
.
Daniel and Jordi argued a little bit back and forth about the PDP applying or not. Jordi's latest comment on a PDP/not PDP as a policy but documents should reach consensus, so updating any document follows the same process for getting consensus as for the original document. And I think he refers to earlier versions of the Code of Conduct here.
.
Still, there might be reasons to look at the different process for how to improve the Code of Conduct itself, but also how to improve the Code of Conduct's own processes which might be partly documented and might be partly based on culture. We already heard Harry say ‑‑ and something that is already in the draft document ‑‑ continuous learning processes, report on these type of things. But I wonder if there are other opinions on this topic?
.
And I am looking at the chat, because if there is no feedback either in the Q&A or people joining the queue, then I am going to allow for a little bit of open mic time. Jan has asked a question whether he can go in the open mic time. I am still looking for ‑‑ Jan, I see you in the queue. But I want to wait a little bit on seeing if people have any questions on this slide, or comments on this slide.
.
Well, in that case, this is what you get, Leo, and task force team, on the specific questions. I am going to open the open mic for the remaining seven minutes. Jan, there you go!
JAN ZORZ: My question is a little bit connected to the whole thing. I think last year we had the RIPE NCC Executive Board Election Task Force; I was part of it, and we wrote in the recommendations that there was a support for using the trusted contact model although the current group consists of the new RIPE Chair and the RIPE NCC staff, which is not ideal to deal with conflict of interest.
.
So in cases that people are volunteers for the RIPE NCC Executive Board, if they violate the Code of Conduct that is not defined which one, if other people report them, they basically created the RIPE NCC Executive Board Code of Conduct team, that is a different Code of Conduct team that we are talking about here now, and it was basically created from members of the task force, a little bit ad hoc. But my question is: When people sign up and volunteer for the Executive Board, they are still community members; they are not members of the board. Should we at some point in time also make this Code of Conduct team one for both reasons and not have two Code of Conduct teams?
OLAF KOLKMAN: A clear question to the community, I presume? Perhaps this is a question you could bring to the list very explicitly, either a member of the task force or you yourself, Jan. If somebody would like to answer to that.
JAN ZORZ: I thought there would be some ‑‑ maybe some direct feedback from this BoF, but, yeah, I can bring it to the ‑‑
OLAF KOLKMAN: I see Rob entering the queue. Rob, maybe you want to reply specifically.
ROB EVANS: So, one of the problems or challenges that the Code of Conduct Executive Board task force recommendation was that it's only allowed for non‑RIPE NCC members of the trusted contacts to be the judges on whether the candidates were adhering to the Code of Conduct, and that created two problems: First of all, it meant that I was the sole gatekeeper to the Executive Board, which is probably not what anyone intended, but also then it risks the confidentiality agreement that is fundamental to the trusted contacts.
.
So if there is a larger Code of Conduct team, I don't necessarily see that being a problem. But I think the thing that you need to think about is that confidentiality aspect and whether, having them be the gatekeepers, risks that confidentiality.
OLAF KOLKMAN: So it's the complexities of conflict of interest with that particular role that makes it difficult.
.
Actually, Daniel replied to the Q&A on this particular question that we have on the slide. He says: "Okay, update the Code of Conduct with regular reviews every two years; create a new task force if substantial changes are needed. Community consensus call by the Chair about new version of the Code of Conduct ‑‑ about new versions and a Code of Conduct improvements, should be ad hoc an internal matter."
.
So that's his feedback on this particular set of questions on the slide.
.
I am looking if there is anybody in the queue at this moment. I would like to ask the task force members if they still have particular points where they would like to ask clarification to people who have provided feedback? So far, is there anything that you have heard where you say we would like to know a little bit more? I'm putting you on the spot, I realise. I am hearing none.
.
It appears that the queue is empty and that we have exhausted your brain power for today. I would like to thank everybody who has contributed with questions, comments and feedback. The task force will do its magic first on the current draft and then in providing proposals around the three questions that we ‑‑ or the work items that are still on their list.
.
What is the timeline on which people can expect things again so that the first ‑‑ the draft that's currently being worked on ‑‑ somewhere in July I heard you say, and what is the timeline for those other work items?
LEO VEGODA: Well, we would like to get out the updated draft before July, and obviously, you know, we'll be aware that it's summer and people will want to take some time off, so I'm sure that this will be taken into consideration, but there is a consensus call. We are meeting pretty much every two weeks, so we will do our best to develop drafts for the processes and the Code of Conduct team. I would love to give you a timeline, but we need to do some real thinking, and so I don't want to just pluck a date out of the air and tell you that's when we're going to have it, because we don't know what problems we need to resolve before we can come up with a draft.
OLAF KOLKMAN: And if you have any questions to the community while drafting, where will those questions go? What is the list where the discussion takes place?
LEO VEGODA: The RIPE discussion list, please.
OLAF KOLKMAN: The RIPE discussion list is the preferred list.
.
And with that, I think that we have concluded this BoF. I would like to thank every participant again. I wish the task force good luck in its further work and thank you for the service you are doing to the community.
LEO VEGODA: And thank you very much for agreeing to chair this BoF, but, you know, we really appreciate you taking the lead on making the discussion happen so that we can focus on listening.
OLAF KOLKMAN: Thank you all. Good‑bye.
LIVE CAPTIONING BY
MARY McKEON, RMR, CRR, CBC
DUBLIN, IRELAND.
