Many of the Malcolm’s concerns are also trouble me quire a bit. So I would be very surprised if there was consensus about the CoC.
Daniel --- Sent from a handheld device. > On 16. Oct 2019, at 14:24, Malcolm Hutty <malc...@linx.net> wrote: > > Dear all, > > I understand that on Thursday afternoon the RIPE Plenary will be invited > to adopt “Code of Conduct v3.0”. Unfortunately I must leave Rotterdam at > lunchtime, so I am writing to share with you my reasons for believing it > should not be approved. > > Code of Conduct v3.0 proposes the creation of a new entity, the “CoC > Team” who will be invested with the power to hear allegations of breach > of the Code of Conduct and decide what sanctions, if any, to apply to > the community member in violation. > > Planned sanctions include, amongst other things, > 1. Not allowing someone to participate further in RIPE Meetings and/or > other RIPE community spaces, for a set period or an indefinite period > 2. A public reprimand > 3. Requiring that a public apology is made > > Denying someone the opportunity to participate in RIPE is clearly a > serious step. Issuing a public reprimand, or requiring a public apology > (i.e. admission of guilt) is potentially seriously damaging to a > person’s reputation. Since a public reprimand might make reference to > the purposes of the Code, including the prevention of sexual harassment > and racist abuse, and assert that the person was found to have violated > the Code, but not necessarily say what the individual is alleged to have > actually done, a public reprimand from the CoC team could have lasting > impact on a person’s career prospects. > > It is therefore a matter of great importance to every member of this > community that if such sanctions are ever applied, the most scrupulous > process is used. > > Unfortunately, in my view the process set out in Code of Conduct 3.0 is > very far from fit for purpose. > > For a start, given the gravity of the intended sanctions, I am stunned > to see that the Code neither requires nor suggests that the CoC Team > should attempt to speak to the accused individual to get their side of > the story. Indeed, there is no requirement that the accused person is > even informed of the details of the allegation against them. A public > reprimand could be the first the subject hears of the matter. > > The right to be heard before being punished is not an obscure legalistic > procedural device. It is fundamental to basic fairness. > > Granted, a right of appeal has been added to the Code (thank you Daniel > Karrenberg for your urgent intervention!), but I do not think appeal > after the fact is sufficient correction to a basically abusive process. > > Although the most egregious, that is far from the only flaw with Code of > Conduct 3.0. It positively encourages anonymous complaints. Complaints > are also encouraged not only from alleged “victims”, but also from > “witnesses” > > The Code promises that the identity of the complainant will not be > disclosed to the subject of the complaint, potentially making it > impossible to understand the circumstances or provide an explanation. > The person submitting a complaint is not disqualified under the Code > from sitting as a member of the CoC Team adjudicating the complaint. > Given that the Code also invites witness reports and assures witnesses > that their reports will not be viewed less favourably because they have > made multiple reports, it would be entirely consistent with the Code for > the CoC Team to also act as as a Code of Conduct patrol, making reports > of violations and then sitting in judgement on their own allegations. > > Thanks to anonymity, nobody outside the CoC team would even know if this > were occurring. > > There are other problems, but this message is already too long. > > Throughout the Code, the emphasis is consistently on the CoC Team’s > responsibility to the reporter. There is no such recognition of a > responsibility to the person ‘under investigation’ – by which I mean, > the person who is the subject of the complaint; there is actually no > expectation set in the Code that the CoC Team would actually conduct an > investigation, rather than proceeding directly to judgement on the basis > solely of the information contained in the allegation. > > I have described some serious flaws, but in my view, it is not worth > trying to rescue this proposal with patches to each of them. The > document as a whole is riddled with bias, and should be abandoned. The > Diversity Taskforce has demonstrated that it is not an appropriate body > to be undertaking this work. > > Any serious attempt to create a process for enforcement of a Code of > Conduct should be predicated on the basis that a grievance and > disciplinary process (which is what this is) owes a serious duty of > fairness to all parties, not only to one side. > > Malcolm. > > -- > Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 > Head of Public Affairs | web: www.linx.net > London Internet Exchange | > > London Internet Exchange Ltd > Monument Place, 24 Monument Street London EC3R 8AJ > > Company Registered in England No. 3137929 > Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
