+1 for Sasha. Maria On 30 November 2023 17:29:12 CET, Massimo Candela <massimo@ntt.net> wrote:

On 30/11/2023 17:18, Nat Morris wrote:

...

On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 at 10:27, Marcos Sanz via opensource-wg <opensource-wg@ripe.net> wrote:

...

Dear all, as explained today during the working group session, three people have volunteered to fill the one open co-chair vacancy. Sorted by sha256() over their full name, the candidates are -Christian Scheele -Luka Perkov -Sasha Romijn

+1 for Sasha

Ciao, Massimo

_______________________________________________ opensource-wg mailing list opensource-wg@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/opensource-wg

To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/opensource-wg

-- Maria Matejka (she/her) | BIRD Team Leader | CZ.NIC, z.s.p.o.

Hello Marcos and WG! This is indeed a good way to resolve this, even though it maybe should have been better announced before the voting took place. Anyway, better to do the filter now than never. I support your decision fully. Maria On 16 December 2023 08:56:51 CET, Marcos Sanz via opensource-wg <opensource-wg@ripe.net> wrote:

Dear working group, Dear RIPE community,

The two weeks period to express preferences for one (or more) of the candidates to the open co-chair position is over. First and foremost: thanks to everyone who actively participated in the mailing list.

After the somehow unusual traffic in the list during the past two weeks, Martin and I decided that we would like to prioritize the voices of active participants in the working group or the RIPE community at large towards the voices of those who could not be identified as such. Trying to find hard criteria for this is not easy, but nevertheless we had to, so this is the result of our deliberations:

We will not consider the vote of those who a) were not subscribed to the RIPE open source mailing list as of the beginning of the voting window (last 30th November, day of the OSS wg meeting) AND b) have not attended a single RIPE meeting since RIPE 80, neither in presence nor remote. A bit of rationale about the latter: we took RIPE 80 because it is the point in time where Meetecho support was mature enough for the RIPE meeting to be organized completely virtual (admittedly, in kind of involuntary manner 😉). That entails everyone wanting to join a meeting could have done so, even if lacking the financial means.

We believe that we want votes from the active community who is involved in the future and was involved in the past with the Open Source WG / RIPE and are familiar with our past work and the candidates for the new WG chair position. As such, we do believe that new signups with no prior history of involvement in the community should not qualify to vote this time. We do believe that we have three excellent candidates and each of them has some great skills, but understanding the skills required to further improve this group is hard to be judged by anyone who was never part of RIPE. Please do not misunderstand this step as a sign of hostility towards newcomers: you are and always be welcome to join the community at anytime and to start participating in our open source arena as of now!

We have presented this process and its rationale to the RIPE chair and no opposition was expressed for us to move ahead. Based on these criteria we’ll now review all expressions of support in the mailing list and plan to provide you with an outcome as soon as possible. If you think we are making a wrong decision, please speak up within the next few days.

Best regards,

Marcos and Martin Open Source WG Chairs

...

-----Mensaje original----- De: opensource-wg <opensource-wg-bounces@ripe.net> En nombre de Marcos Sanz via opensource-wg Enviado el: jueves, 30 de noviembre de 2023 10:27 Para: opensource-wg@ripe.net Asunto: [opensource-wg] Call for support of co-chair candidates

Dear all,

as explained today during the working group session, three people have volunteered to fill the one open co-chair vacancy. Sorted by sha256() over their full name, the candidates are

-Christian Scheele

-Luka Perkov

-Sasha Romijn

Big thanks to all of them for their offer to support the community, we are happy to see such an interest! The candidates have introduced themselves and their motivations also during today’s session. In case you missed it, you can watch the specific recordings here:

https://ripe87.ripe.net/archives/video/1214

https://ripe87.ripe.net/archives/video/1217

Now this is a public call for support of the candidates, open for TWO WEEKS starting now and ENDING 14th December (EOB UTC). If you want to support one (or more) candidate(s), please send a public message doing so to this mailing list. Statements of support cannot be anonymous, so please finish the e-mail with your name.

It’s also possible (even helpful) to support more than one candidate (to be able to break potential ties). If you’d wish to do so, please deliver your statement of support with the candidate names sorted by preference.

Now it’s your time to contribute by choosing the new co-chair: help the community!

Marcos Sanz & Martin Winter

-- Maria Matejka (she/her) | BIRD Team Leader | CZ.NIC, z.s.p.o.

Dear Marcos and Martin, I appreciate your comprehensive email outlining the additional steps for achieving consensus in choosing the next co-chair for the Open Source Working Group. I fully endorse your approach of considering the votes of active RIPE community participants during the counting process. I strongly believe in fostering an open and inclusive RIPE community that actively engages in selecting its leadership. As you've pointed out, the various participation options, including free remote participation via Meetecho and mailing lists, significantly lower the barriers for entry to meetings and discussions. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration and dedication to the selection process for new co-chairs. Best regards, -- Benno On 16/12/2023 08:56, Marcos Sanz via opensource-wg wrote:

Dear working group, Dear RIPE community,

The two weeks period to express preferences for one (or more) of the candidates to the open co-chair position is over. First and foremost: thanks to everyone who actively participated in the mailing list.

After the somehow unusual traffic in the list during the past two weeks, Martin and I decided that we would like to prioritize the voices of active participants in the working group or the RIPE community at large towards the voices of those who could not be identified as such. Trying to find hard criteria for this is not easy, but nevertheless we had to, so this is the result of our deliberations:

We will not consider the vote of those who a) were not subscribed to the RIPE open source mailing list as of the beginning of the voting window (last 30th November, day of the OSS wg meeting) AND b) have not attended a single RIPE meeting since RIPE 80, neither in presence nor remote. A bit of rationale about the latter: we took RIPE 80 because it is the point in time where Meetecho support was mature enough for the RIPE meeting to be organized completely virtual (admittedly, in kind of involuntary manner 😉). That entails everyone wanting to join a meeting could have done so, even if lacking the financial means.

We believe that we want votes from the active community who is involved in the future and was involved in the past with the Open Source WG / RIPE and are familiar with our past work and the candidates for the new WG chair position. As such, we do believe that new signups with no prior history of involvement in the community should not qualify to vote this time. We do believe that we have three excellent candidates and each of them has some great skills, but understanding the skills required to further improve this group is hard to be judged by anyone who was never part of RIPE. Please do not misunderstand this step as a sign of hostility towards newcomers: you are and always be welcome to join the community at anytime and to start participating in our open source arena as of now!

We have presented this process and its rationale to the RIPE chair and no opposition was expressed for us to move ahead. Based on these criteria we’ll now review all expressions of support in the mailing list and plan to provide you with an outcome as soon as possible. If you think we are making a wrong decision, please speak up within the next few days.

Best regards,

Marcos and Martin Open Source WG Chairs

...

-----Mensaje original----- De: opensource-wg <opensource-wg-bounces@ripe.net> En nombre de Marcos Sanz via opensource-wg Enviado el: jueves, 30 de noviembre de 2023 10:27 Para: opensource-wg@ripe.net Asunto: [opensource-wg] Call for support of co-chair candidates

Dear all,

as explained today during the working group session, three people have volunteered to fill the one open co-chair vacancy. Sorted by sha256() over their full name, the candidates are

-Christian Scheele

-Luka Perkov

-Sasha Romijn

Big thanks to all of them for their offer to support the community, we are happy to see such an interest! The candidates have introduced themselves and their motivations also during today’s session. In case you missed it, you can watch the specific recordings here:

https://ripe87.ripe.net/archives/video/1214

https://ripe87.ripe.net/archives/video/1217

Now this is a public call for support of the candidates, open for TWO WEEKS starting now and ENDING 14th December (EOB UTC). If you want to support one (or more) candidate(s), please send a public message doing so to this mailing list. Statements of support cannot be anonymous, so please finish the e-mail with your name.

It’s also possible (even helpful) to support more than one candidate (to be able to break potential ties). If you’d wish to do so, please deliver your statement of support with the candidate names sorted by preference.

Now it’s your time to contribute by choosing the new co-chair: help the community!

Marcos Sanz & Martin Winter

_______________________________________________ opensource-wg mailing list opensource-wg@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/opensource-wg

To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/opensource-wg

-- Benno J. Overeinder NLnet Labs https://www.nlnetlabs.nl/

On 16. 12. 2023, at 18:02, Paul Arola <paul.arola@gmail.com> wrote:

Initially, the voting process was defined by specific and clear guidelines. The retrospective amendment of these criteria after the election raises significant concerns about transparency and the integrity of the democratic process within our community. Changing these rules post-factum sets a precedent that is both unexpected and concerning.

On the contrary. The process isn’t and wasn’t really “formal”, because we didn’t have to have a formal process. The way I read the decision from the chair, they strive to have the voting process work for the existing community. If suddenly there’s a surge of people who were never active in this community subscribing to the mailing list and voting for any of the candidates, I would consider this be a kind of hostile takeover. Honestly, I think the only fair way out of this would be if the candidate who received the surge of votes from people outside of this community stepped down. A co-chair elected with votes from people who never participated in the RIPE community would not be accepted by this community and it would be divisive and toxic to the future work. Ondrej -- Ondřej Surý (He/Him) On Sat, Dec 16, 2023, at 18:01, Paul Arola wrote:

Dear Marcos Sanz, Martin Winter, and the RIPE Community,

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing in response to the recent announcement regarding the change in the voting criteria for the open co-chair position within the Open Source Working Group.

Initially, the voting process was defined by specific and clear guidelines. The retrospective amendment of these criteria after the election raises significant concerns about transparency and the integrity of the democratic process within our community. Changing these rules post-factum sets a precedent that is both unexpected and concerning.

This decision also raises questions about the RIPE Open Source Working Group's approach to collaboration. The use of terms like "our open source arena" only confirms exclusivity and combativeness, which is not conducive to the open and collaborative nature of open source communities. It goes against the spirit of open source, which emphasizes inclusivity and community-driven development.

Moreover, the chairs did not provide a clear explanation as to why the voting rules needed to be changed in the first place. The only rationale offered was a reference to "unusual traffic" on the mailing list during the past two weeks. However, upon observation, this traffic is only related to the voting process, which was explicitly requested and encouraged by the chairs themselves. Clearly, such a perspective suggests a desire to maintain existing power dynamics and unfortunately limits new engagement.

This approach contradicts the very essence of a dynamic, community-driven platform, where open discussion and participation are fundamental. The lack of a substantive explanation for altering the voting rules post-factum, coupled with the dismissal of voting-related activity as "unusual," suggests a preference for maintaining existing power dynamics over fostering a vibrant, participatory community discourse.

Instead of the newly minted and spontaneously crafted criteria revealed to us this morning, I propose a more transparent approach. It would be more enlightening for the chairs to publicly detail the reasons behind each voter's acceptability or unacceptability, moving away from the arbitrary constructs they have presented here. Providing transparency to both the voters and the candidates would offer much-needed insights from the chairs that define what constitutes an 'eligible' voter and clarify the operation of this "arena."

As part of that process, it would be constructive if the chairs could offer guidance on how those currently deemed 'unfit' voters might become eligible in the future, as well as any potential pitfalls that current 'eligible' voters should avoid to maintain their status. Such openness would greatly aid in demystifying the voting process and ensuring a fair and inclusive community environment.

Thank you for considering this feedback. I look forward to a constructive and open discussion on these matters.

With best regards,

-paul

(From TELUS Communications, a Telco who does considerable funding of open source initiatives)

On Sat., Dec. 16, 2023, 12:57 a.m. Marcos Sanz via opensource-wg, <opensource-wg@ripe.net> wrote:

...

Dear working group, Dear RIPE community,

The two weeks period to express preferences for one (or more) of the candidates to the open co-chair position is over. First and foremost: thanks to everyone who actively participated in the mailing list.

After the somehow unusual traffic in the list during the past two weeks, Martin and I decided that we would like to prioritize the voices of active participants in the working group or the RIPE community at large towards the voices of those who could not be identified as such. Trying to find hard criteria for this is not easy, but nevertheless we had to, so this is the result of our deliberations:

We will not consider the vote of those who a) were not subscribed to the RIPE open source mailing list as of the beginning of the voting window (last 30th November, day of the OSS wg meeting) AND b) have not attended a single RIPE meeting since RIPE 80, neither in presence nor remote. A bit of rationale about the latter: we took RIPE 80 because it is the point in time where Meetecho support was mature enough for the RIPE meeting to be organized completely virtual (admittedly, in kind of involuntary manner 😉). That entails everyone wanting to join a meeting could have done so, even if lacking the financial means.

We believe that we want votes from the active community who is involved in the future and was involved in the past with the Open Source WG / RIPE and are familiar with our past work and the candidates for the new WG chair position. As such, we do believe that new signups with no prior history of involvement in the community should not qualify to vote this time. We do believe that we have three excellent candidates and each of them has some great skills, but understanding the skills required to further improve this group is hard to be judged by anyone who was never part of RIPE. Please do not misunderstand this step as a sign of hostility towards newcomers: you are and always be welcome to join the community at anytime and to start participating in our open source arena as of now!

We have presented this process and its rationale to the RIPE chair and no opposition was expressed for us to move ahead. Based on these criteria we’ll now review all expressions of support in the mailing list and plan to provide you with an outcome as soon as possible. If you think we are making a wrong decision, please speak up within the next few days.

Best regards,

Marcos and Martin Open Source WG Chairs

...

-----Mensaje original----- De: opensource-wg <opensource-wg-bounces@ripe.net> En nombre de Marcos Sanz via opensource-wg Enviado el: jueves, 30 de noviembre de 2023 10:27 Para: opensource-wg@ripe.net Asunto: [opensource-wg] Call for support of co-chair candidates

Dear all,

as explained today during the working group session, three people have volunteered to fill the one open co-chair vacancy. Sorted by sha256() over their full name, the candidates are

-Christian Scheele

-Luka Perkov

-Sasha Romijn

Big thanks to all of them for their offer to support the community, we are happy to see such an interest! The candidates have introduced themselves and their motivations also during today’s session. In case you missed it, you can watch the specific recordings here:

https://ripe87.ripe.net/archives/video/1214

https://ripe87.ripe.net/archives/video/1217

Now this is a public call for support of the candidates, open for TWO WEEKS starting now and ENDING 14th December (EOB UTC). If you want to support one (or more) candidate(s), please send a public message doing so to this mailing list. Statements of support cannot be anonymous, so please finish the e-mail with your name.

It’s also possible (even helpful) to support more than one candidate (to be able to break potential ties). If you’d wish to do so, please deliver your statement of support with the candidate names sorted by preference.

Now it’s your time to contribute by choosing the new co-chair: help the community!

Marcos Sanz & Martin Winter

_______________________________________________ opensource-wg mailing list opensource-wg@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/opensource-wg

To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/opensource-wg

---

opensource-wg mailing list opensource-wg@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/opensource-wg

To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/opensource-wg

-- Ondřej Surý (He/Him) ondrej@sury.org

Oh, I didn’t want to imply any intentional wrongdoing. I simply suggested that stepping down in such situation might be the best way to acknowledge the less than ideal situation and prevent the possible argument that might drag for a long time. Ondrej On Sat, Dec 16, 2023, at 23:22, Martin Winter wrote:

Ondrej,

On Sat, Dec 16, 2023 at 9:31 PM Ondřej Surý <ondrej@dns.rocks> wrote:

...

The way I read the decision from the chair, they strive to have the voting process work for the existing community. If suddenly there’s a surge of people who were never active in this community subscribing to the mailing list and voting for any of the candidates, I would consider this be a kind of hostile takeover.

Honestly, I think the only fair way out of this would be if the candidate who received the surge of votes from people outside of this community stepped down. A co-chair elected with votes from people who never participated in the RIPE community would not be accepted by this community and it would be divisive and toxic to the future work.

I don't like to go this far. We (as the chairs) have no proof or indication that any of the candidates actively tried to manipulate the voting. However, some candidates might be more popular in their own social circles and may have mentioned that they are candidates. And I think that's all good and fair. I can't blame the candidates for this or for the fact if someone then just signed up to vote for him. I have no indication that he/she motivated them to do this. As such, I assume all candidates are innocent and did not try to manipulate the voting.

Regards, Martin Winter Open Source WG Chair

-- Ondřej Surý (He/Him) ondrej@sury.org

Ines. First of all welcome. And yes, you are one of the impacted persons as well who just joined the list after the RIPE meeting, not attended any recent RIPEs and were still informed well enough to immediatly vote after joining the list. On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:14 AM Ines Skelac <ines.skelac@ffrz.hr> wrote:

Dear RIPE Community,

I am writing to express my disappointment and concern regarding the recent decision-making process for the open co-chair position in the RIPE community. As a new member of this esteemed group, I find the approach taken to be both disheartening and alarming.

Is it really alarming that we don't allow votes from people who were not part of the community when the voting started? In all democracies I know, you have to be registered/present some time before the voting starts. If you would be part of the RIPE community for a bit longer then you would be aware that usually the voting would be at the meeting itself. We decided at the last minute to give people a bit more time after they heard each of them introducing themself at the meeting and give them 2 weeks to make up their minds. Maybe we should have been clear that later joins are not eligible to vote, but then you wouldn't have seen or heard that anyway as you were not yet part of the community. So instead of making wild accusations that this is alarming, please take yourself as an example and explain why YOUR vote should count. Explain how you know about the voting and how you heard about ALL of the candidates and about your past experience with RIPE (which got you a bit familiar with the community, our goal of the WG) - which I assume you all know to be able to pick the best candidate. Please be aware, we didn't look for the most popular person or the one with the most followers or the best Open Source background. We were looking for the best choice for a WG chair. How this is defined might be viewed differently by each person. If you can explain this, then we might be happy to reconsider counting your vote. So far, the only ones complaining are the ones who signed up days after the meeting and voted immediately.

The decision to disqualify votes from new members who may not have had the opportunity to attend a RIPE meeting or were not subscribed to the mailing list by a specific date seems not only unfair but also counterproductive. This approach overlooks the potential contributions of new members and creates an unwelcoming environment. It also appears to be grounded in logical fallacies, such as the 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' fallacy, which undermines the rationality of this decision.

Please be aware that you can attend RIPE for free from remote. No travel required. No money required. This is a very low entry level. And no, this does not produce a unwelcoming environment, but protects the working group to be not potentially controlled by some outside force. By your definition, welcoming would mean that I can create a bot to create votes and you expect them to be counted. Or I can go and ask all my friends to join and vote in exchange for a beer. This has nothing to do with welcoming, but all about protecting the integrity of the vote. I welcome you to join the next RIPE meeting and bring up this in person to discuss with the whole group. Regards, Martin Winter Open Source WG Chair

Moreover, such a stance is unacademic and unethical. It disregards the principles of open dialogue and diversity of perspectives, which are crucial in any intellectual community. Disqualifying members without substantial evidence and not acknowledging the value of fresh perspectives can severely damage the integrity and reputation of the RIPE community.

As a new member eager to contribute, this experience is not only disheartening but also raises concerns about the future direction of the community. I urge the leadership to reconsider this approach and adopt more inclusive and equitable practices. The strength of a community lies in its diversity and openness to all voices, including those of its newest members.

I hope that my concerns will be taken seriously and that we can work together towards a more inclusive and respectful RIPE community.

Sincerely,

Ines Skelac, PhD, Assistant Professor

Vice-dean for Science, International Cooperation, Management and Quality Assurance

University of Zagreb, Faculty of Philosophy and Religious Studies

sub, 16. pro 2023. u 23:45 Ondřej Surý <ondrej@dns.rocks> napisao je:

...

Oh, I didn’t want to imply any intentional wrongdoing. I simply suggested that stepping down in such situation might be the best way to acknowledge the less than ideal situation and prevent the possible argument that might drag for a long time.

Ondrej

On Sat, Dec 16, 2023, at 23:22, Martin Winter wrote:

Ondrej,

On Sat, Dec 16, 2023 at 9:31 PM Ondřej Surý <ondrej@dns.rocks> wrote:

...

The way I read the decision from the chair, they strive to have the voting process work for the existing community. If suddenly there’s a surge of people who were never active in this community subscribing to the mailing list and voting for any of the candidates, I would consider this be a kind of hostile takeover.

Honestly, I think the only fair way out of this would be if the candidate who received the surge of votes from people outside of this community stepped down. A co-chair elected with votes from people who never participated in the RIPE community would not be accepted by this community and it would be divisive and toxic to the future work.

I don't like to go this far. We (as the chairs) have no proof or indication that any of the candidates actively tried to manipulate the voting. However, some candidates might be more popular in their own social circles and may have mentioned that they are candidates. And I think that's all good and fair. I can't blame the candidates for this or for the fact if someone then just signed up to vote for him. I have no indication that he/she motivated them to do this. As such, I assume all candidates are innocent and did not try to manipulate the voting.

Regards, Martin Winter Open Source WG Chair

-- Ondřej Surý (He/Him) ondrej@sury.org

_______________________________________________ opensource-wg mailing list opensource-wg@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/opensource-wg

To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/opensource-wg

_______________________________________________ opensource-wg mailing list opensource-wg@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/opensource-wg

To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/opensource-wg

Dear Martin, Thank you for extending a welcome to me and for engaging in this important dialogue. I am grateful for the opportunity to share my perspective and to deepen my involvement with the RIPE community. In your email, you highlighted the importance of being a well-informed and active member of the community, particularly in the context of voting for leadership positions. However, the growing inconsistency surrounding the nature of this process — whether it was intended as a public call for candidate support, a forum for expressing opinions, or an element of a specific selection procedure — is of considerable concern. This lack of clarity, which appears to be more than coincidental, has left myself, and possibly others, in a state of doubt regarding the appropriate way to respond and participate. My actions were based on the directives issued by the current chairs, yet I now find myself questioning if there might be a deeper, possibly unspoken, agenda underpinning these communications. While it perhaps truly is coincidentally inconvenient that such ambiguities were not adequately addressed prior to "unusual traffic in the list”, I would greatly appreciate your guidance in shedding light on the true purpose and framework of this initiative. In my quest to navigate through this entanglement, I delved into the historical records of our mailing list. My investigation revealed a notably sparse flow of communication, with only about 20 emails exchanged annually on average. Given that we are now approaching the year's end, I am expecting that someone might at some point propose a thoughtful reduction in email traffic for these remaining days of December. This strategy potentially could preserve the customary communication patterns, ensuring a well-balanced and smooth transition into the upcoming year, and potentially revitalizing the usual dialogue dynamics within the list. Despite these well designed roadblocks, I would like to offer some insights into my involvement and interest in the RIPE community, which will allow you to make informed decisions and not uninformed opinions. I agree that knowing who we collaborate with is key for effective teamwork. Acknowledging your concerns, I appreciate the chance to introduce myself. Surely you have noticed that I've used my official email for group subscription to affirm my genuine interest and identity, underscoring my commitment to maintaining the integrity and trustworthiness of our voting process. As a philosopher and computational linguist with experience in training language models and the ethics of big data, I believe I can offer insights and expertise to the RIPE community. My introduction to RIPE was through a recommendation by Luka Perkov, a long-time collaborator, and a respected member of the open source community. Over the past year, my research group has extensively utilized statistical data, which has been very useful in our work. At the University of Zagreb as well as at Entimem Ltd, we have specialized in deep learning analysis of religious texts of various religions, and RIPE's data has been helpful in measuring activities, aiding our project proposals and research. As I have now introduced myself in this e-mail as requested, I am now very interested to learn more about other members in the same way, namely those whose opinions are given weight in these discussions and decisions so that I am at least given an opportunity to engage in the conversation. This would not only foster a sense of safety and inclusion but also align with the RIPE’s Code of Conduct, where it is stated that one of the main goals of the RIPE community is “to help everyone feel safe and included. Many people will be new to our community. Some may have had negative experiences in other communities. We want to set a clear expectation that harassment and related behaviours are not tolerated here. If people do have an unpleasant experience, they will know that this is neither the norm nor acceptable to us as a community.” In closing, I would appreciate any information on how we collaborate and meet outside of the RIPE meetings, so I can efficiently plan my involvement. Additionally, if there are any resources, guidelines, or specific contacts that could help me get started and blend more smoothly into the team, I would be most grateful for that information. What I have seen so far is very intriguing and I am very interested to understand the dynamics of the community. Warm regards, Ines pon, 18. pro 2023. u 11:25 Martin Winter <mwinter@netdef.org> napisao je:

Ines.

First of all welcome. And yes, you are one of the impacted persons as well who just joined the list after the RIPE meeting, not attended any recent RIPEs and were still informed well enough to immediatly vote after joining the list.

On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:14 AM Ines Skelac <ines.skelac@ffrz.hr> wrote:

...

Dear RIPE Community,

I am writing to express my disappointment and concern regarding the

recent decision-making process for the open co-chair position in the RIPE community. As a new member of this esteemed group, I find the approach taken to be both disheartening and alarming.

Is it really alarming that we don't allow votes from people who were not part of the community when the voting started? In all democracies I know, you have to be registered/present some time before the voting starts. If you would be part of the RIPE community for a bit longer then you would be aware that usually the voting would be at the meeting itself. We decided at the last minute to give people a bit more time after they heard each of them introducing themself at the meeting and give them 2 weeks to make up their minds. Maybe we should have been clear that later joins are not eligible to vote, but then you wouldn't have seen or heard that anyway as you were not yet part of the community.

So instead of making wild accusations that this is alarming, please take yourself as an example and explain why YOUR vote should count. Explain how you know about the voting and how you heard about ALL of the candidates and about your past experience with RIPE (which got you a bit familiar with the community, our goal of the WG) - which I assume you all know to be able to pick the best candidate. Please be aware, we didn't look for the most popular person or the one with the most followers or the best Open Source background. We were looking for the best choice for a WG chair. How this is defined might be viewed differently by each person.

If you can explain this, then we might be happy to reconsider counting your vote. So far, the only ones complaining are the ones who signed up days after the meeting and voted immediately.

...

The decision to disqualify votes from new members who may not have had the opportunity to attend a RIPE meeting or were not subscribed to the mailing list by a specific date seems not only unfair but also counterproductive. This approach overlooks the potential contributions of new members and creates an unwelcoming environment. It also appears to be grounded in logical fallacies, such as the 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' fallacy, which undermines the rationality of this decision.

Please be aware that you can attend RIPE for free from remote. No travel required. No money required. This is a very low entry level. And no, this does not produce a unwelcoming environment, but protects the working group to be not potentially controlled by some outside force. By your definition, welcoming would mean that I can create a bot to create votes and you expect them to be counted. Or I can go and ask all my friends to join and vote in exchange for a beer. This has nothing to do with welcoming, but all about protecting the integrity of the vote.

I welcome you to join the next RIPE meeting and bring up this in person to discuss with the whole group.

Regards, Martin Winter Open Source WG Chair

...

Moreover, such a stance is unacademic and unethical. It disregards the

principles of open dialogue and diversity of perspectives, which are crucial in any intellectual community. Disqualifying members without substantial evidence and not acknowledging the value of fresh perspectives can severely damage the integrity and reputation of the RIPE community.

...

As a new member eager to contribute, this experience is not only

disheartening but also raises concerns about the future direction of the community. I urge the leadership to reconsider this approach and adopt more inclusive and equitable practices. The strength of a community lies in its diversity and openness to all voices, including those of its newest members.

...

I hope that my concerns will be taken seriously and that we can work

together towards a more inclusive and respectful RIPE community.

...

Sincerely,

Ines Skelac, PhD, Assistant Professor

Vice-dean for Science, International Cooperation, Management and Quality

Assurance

...

University of Zagreb, Faculty of Philosophy and Religious Studies

sub, 16. pro 2023. u 23:45 Ondřej Surý <ondrej@dns.rocks> napisao je:

...

Oh, I didn’t want to imply any intentional wrongdoing. I simply

...

...

Ondrej

On Sat, Dec 16, 2023, at 23:22, Martin Winter wrote:

Ondrej,

On Sat, Dec 16, 2023 at 9:31 PM Ondřej Surý <ondrej@dns.rocks> wrote:

...

The way I read the decision from the chair, they strive to have the

voting process work for the existing community. If suddenly there’s a surge of people who were never active in this community subscribing to the mailing list and voting for any of the candidates, I would consider this be a kind of hostile takeover.

...

...

Honestly, I think the only fair way out of this would be if the

candidate who received the surge of votes from people outside of this community stepped down. A co-chair elected with votes from people who never

suggested that stepping down in such situation might be the best way to acknowledge the less than ideal situation and prevent the possible argument that might drag for a long time. participated in the RIPE community would not be accepted by this community and it would be divisive and toxic to the future work.

...

...

I don't like to go this far. We (as the chairs) have no proof or indication that any of the candidates actively tried to manipulate the voting. However, some candidates might be more popular in their own social circles and may have mentioned that they are candidates. And I think that's all good and fair. I can't blame the candidates for this or for the fact if someone then just signed up to vote for him. I have no indication that he/she motivated them to do this. As such, I assume all candidates are innocent and did not try to manipulate the voting.

Regards, Martin Winter Open Source WG Chair

-- Ondřej Surý (He/Him) ondrej@sury.org

_______________________________________________ opensource-wg mailing list opensource-wg@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/opensource-wg

To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or

change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/opensource-wg

_______________________________________________ opensource-wg mailing list opensource-wg@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/opensource-wg

To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/opensource-wg

Paul, On Sat, Dec 16, 2023 at 6:02 PM Paul Arola <paul.arola@gmail.com> wrote:

Initially, the voting process was defined by specific and clear guidelines. The retrospective amendment of these criteria after the election raises significant concerns about transparency and the integrity of the democratic process within our community. Changing these rules post-factum sets a precedent that is both unexpected and concerning.

Actually, no. The decision to move it to the mailing list was something which wasn't initially planned. Initially, the idea would have been to vote during the session. We (Marcos and myself and while discussing this with other WG Chairs) decided then to move it to the list, as we were not sure on how to do the voting with remote attendees and not everyone can attend all the meetings, but we still wanted to have all of the participants of the OS-WG to be able to vote. For the ones here who are not 10+ years with the OS WG, this was actually the first time we had to vote. Before that it was just Marcos who joined last year, but with one opening and one candidate, there was just a formal confirmation at the meeting. (And I was never voted in, as I started the WG long time back). And just to be clear, I'm very happy to hear that we have now multiple candidates.

This decision also raises questions about the RIPE Open Source Working Group's approach to collaboration. The use of terms like "our open source arena" only confirms exclusivity and combativeness, which is not conducive to the open and collaborative nature of open source communities. It goes against the spirit of open source, which emphasizes inclusivity and community-driven development.

Moreover, the chairs did not provide a clear explanation as to why the voting rules needed to be changed in the first place. The only rationale offered was a reference to "unusual traffic" on the mailing list during the past two weeks. However, upon observation, this traffic is only related to the voting process, which was explicitly requested and encouraged by the chairs themselves. Clearly, such a perspective suggests a desire to maintain existing power dynamics and unfortunately limits new engagement.

If you ask me on more detail: We had a lot of people signing up to the mailing list and then immediatly vote within their first 24hrs. When we looked at these persons, we noticed that they had no previous history with the Working Group and not attended any RIPE meetings either locally or from remote at least for the past 3+ years. So, the question comes down to how do they even know about the vote? They haven't seen the call to vote and they didn't attend the meeting. Also, how likely do these people even know the other candidates to make a good decision. This is after all, not a recognition for good past work, but we are looking at some candidate who can help us to get the most out of the working group?

This approach contradicts the very essence of a dynamic, community-driven platform, where open discussion and participation are fundamental. The lack of a substantive explanation for altering the voting rules post-factum, coupled with the dismissal of voting-related activity as "unusual," suggests a preference for maintaining existing power dynamics over fostering a vibrant, participatory community discourse.

No. RIPE is not a set of fixed rules and anyone attending RIPE for a long time probably know this. As the community, we try to guess what is best for the community. And we are only humans. But we posted this message specifically to hear from the rest of this community. We outlined what we planned to do with the votes and wanted feedback. So far, all other feedback seems to support our decision.

Instead of the newly minted and spontaneously crafted criteria revealed to us this morning, I propose a more transparent approach. It would be more enlightening for the chairs to publicly detail the reasons behind each voter's acceptability or unacceptability, moving away from the arbitrary constructs they have presented here. Providing transparency to both the voters and the candidates would offer much-needed insights from the chairs that define what constitutes an 'eligible' voter and clarify the operation of this "arena."

So how about you introduce yourself? Just speak for yourself. You, Paul, are one of these persons who signed up to the mailing list and voted on the same day, while quoting "long time lurker, first time poster". And from our records, you haven't attended any RIPE meeting at least since RIPE 80. So, the question would be, would you potentially be a new active part of the community or did you just join because you heard that someone you highly regard is running for the WG chair position?

As part of that process, it would be constructive if the chairs could offer guidance on how those currently deemed 'unfit' voters might become eligible in the future, as well as any potential pitfalls that current 'eligible' voters should avoid to maintain their status. Such openness would greatly aid in demystifying the voting process and ensuring a fair and inclusive community environment.

Simple: Be part of the community for more than a few days. Would be great if we could see some of these new subscribers to stick around and even attend a RIPE meeting in the future. Preferably in person, but if this isn;t possible, then join it virtual. Or join some discussions, start a discussion etc.

Thank you for considering this feedback. I look forward to a constructive and open discussion on these matters.

Thanks for your feedback. We are open to discuss and do what we believe is right to get this community thriving. In general, RIPE works a lot based on good faith and working together. Regards, Martin Winter Open Source WG Co-Chair

Paul, to answer your questions: I mainly asked not about personal introduction but how you learned about the voting process. After all, you try to make the point that the current process is not fair. I do not care about your personal background - we welcome everyone. What I was looking for: - How did you learn about the chair selection process? After all, the email for the selection process was sent before you joined. - How did you decide that your choice is better than the other choices? After all you are new to this group and seem to be still confused about it. (I take this from the mention of the number of emails on the list. We mainly work on the meeting, so while it would be nice to have a more active list, our main charter isn't the list. Go and check out the RIPE websites for our mission on this (and other) WG If you miss the strategic plan, then please look at the RIPE website, specifically our mission: https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/active-wg/os For activities, we are mostly active at the meetings and all the presentations are archived. A lot of cool content and I suggest you watch some of it when you get some spare time. I hope this makes you interested enough and we can welcome you personally at some future RIPE meeting. In general, there are no introductions and my question was not about you personally (maybe I didn't make this clear enough), but on the lines fo the questions above. Introductions are usually a personal thing at the RIPE meeting. Regards, Martin WInter Open Source WG Chair On Tue, Dec 19, 2023 at 6:32 PM Paul Arola <paul.arola@gmail.com> wrote:

I appreciate the opportunity to introduce myself. With my experience as Chair of the GiGAWire Task Force in the HomeGrid Forum and my involvement in various open source initiatives at TELUS, particularly in G.hn related activities, I am well-prepared to contribute to the RIPE community.

Regarding my initial concerns about transparency and integrity, they may point to deeper challenges within RIPE’s processes. Addressing these issues head-on is crucial for fostering an environment where trust is reinforced and collaboration is encouraged.

That said, I've noticed the absence of a readily available strategic plan or list of the group's activities. Understanding the group's goals and direction would enable me to align my efforts more effectively. Could you please guide me to this information?

Lastly, as a newcomer, I'm eager to learn more about the other members of the community. While I'm somewhat familiar with some, I look forward to getting to know others. How do we facilitate introductions, particularly from established members of the email list?

Thanks,

-paul

On Sat, Dec 16, 2023 at 3:13 PM Martin Winter <mwinter@netdef.org> wrote:

...

Paul,

On Sat, Dec 16, 2023 at 6:02 PM Paul Arola <paul.arola@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Initially, the voting process was defined by specific and clear guidelines. The retrospective amendment of these criteria after the election raises significant concerns about transparency and the integrity of the democratic process within our community. Changing these rules post-factum sets a precedent that is both unexpected and concerning.

Actually, no. The decision to move it to the mailing list was something which wasn't initially planned. Initially, the idea would have been to vote during the session. We (Marcos and myself and while discussing this with other WG Chairs) decided then to move it to the list, as we were not sure on how to do the voting with remote attendees and not everyone can attend all the meetings, but we still wanted to have all of the participants of the OS-WG to be able to vote. For the ones here who are not 10+ years with the OS WG, this was actually the first time we had to vote. Before that it was just Marcos who joined last year, but with one opening and one candidate, there was just a formal confirmation at the meeting. (And I was never voted in, as I started the WG long time back). And just to be clear, I'm very happy to hear that we have now multiple candidates.

...

This decision also raises questions about the RIPE Open Source Working Group's approach to collaboration. The use of terms like "our open source arena" only confirms exclusivity and combativeness, which is not conducive to the open and collaborative nature of open source communities. It goes against the spirit of open source, which emphasizes inclusivity and community-driven development.

Moreover, the chairs did not provide a clear explanation as to why the voting rules needed to be changed in the first place. The only rationale offered was a reference to "unusual traffic" on the mailing list during the past two weeks. However, upon observation, this traffic is only related to the voting process, which was explicitly requested and encouraged by the chairs themselves. Clearly, such a perspective suggests a desire to maintain existing power dynamics and unfortunately limits new engagement.

If you ask me on more detail: We had a lot of people signing up to the mailing list and then immediatly vote within their first 24hrs. When we looked at these persons, we noticed that they had no previous history with the Working Group and not attended any RIPE meetings either locally or from remote at least for the past 3+ years. So, the question comes down to how do they even know about the vote? They haven't seen the call to vote and they didn't attend the meeting. Also, how likely do these people even know the other candidates to make a good decision. This is after all, not a recognition for good past work, but we are looking at some candidate who can help us to get the most out of the working group?

...

This approach contradicts the very essence of a dynamic, community-driven platform, where open discussion and participation are fundamental. The lack of a substantive explanation for altering the voting rules post-factum, coupled with the dismissal of voting-related activity as "unusual," suggests a preference for maintaining existing power dynamics over fostering a vibrant, participatory community discourse.

No. RIPE is not a set of fixed rules and anyone attending RIPE for a long time probably know this. As the community, we try to guess what is best for the community. And we are only humans. But we posted this message specifically to hear from the rest of this community. We outlined what we planned to do with the votes and wanted feedback. So far, all other feedback seems to support our decision.

...

Instead of the newly minted and spontaneously crafted criteria revealed to us this morning, I propose a more transparent approach. It would be more enlightening for the chairs to publicly detail the reasons behind each voter's acceptability or unacceptability, moving away from the arbitrary constructs they have presented here. Providing transparency to both the voters and the candidates would offer much-needed insights from the chairs that define what constitutes an 'eligible' voter and clarify the operation of this "arena."

So how about you introduce yourself? Just speak for yourself. You, Paul, are one of these persons who signed up to the mailing list and voted on the same day, while quoting "long time lurker, first time poster". And from our records, you haven't attended any RIPE meeting at least since RIPE 80. So, the question would be, would you potentially be a new active part of the community or did you just join because you heard that someone you highly regard is running for the WG chair position?

...

As part of that process, it would be constructive if the chairs could offer guidance on how those currently deemed 'unfit' voters might become eligible in the future, as well as any potential pitfalls that current 'eligible' voters should avoid to maintain their status. Such openness would greatly aid in demystifying the voting process and ensuring a fair and inclusive community environment.

Simple: Be part of the community for more than a few days. Would be great if we could see some of these new subscribers to stick around and even attend a RIPE meeting in the future. Preferably in person, but if this isn;t possible, then join it virtual. Or join some discussions, start a discussion etc.

...

Thank you for considering this feedback. I look forward to a constructive and open discussion on these matters.

Thanks for your feedback. We are open to discuss and do what we believe is right to get this community thriving. In general, RIPE works a lot based on good faith and working together.

Regards, Martin Winter Open Source WG Co-Chair