Status of RIPE Chair discussion?
All, Another RIPE meeting has come and gone, but I don't remember any discussion about the missing RIPE Chair stuff - either the job description or appointment procedure. Honestly I'm not sure what to do. While there does not seem to be a lot of enthusiasm for this work, it seems like the kind of thing that should move forward before it is needed. Perhaps we just need to wait for the accountability task force to remind us that we don't have these things? Or do we need to declare the RIPE Chair list a task force so that Daniel will insist that we have a deadline? ;) Cheers, -- Shane
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Hi Shane, Hans Petter and I are working on a RIPE Labs article (as a follow-up to the initial RIPE Labs article Hans Petter published earlier) summarising the various options that were discussed during the plenary in Madrid. We are planning to publish the article next week. Kind regards, Mirjam Kuhne On 17/05/17 10:33, Shane Kerr wrote:
All,
Another RIPE meeting has come and gone, but I don't remember any discussion about the missing RIPE Chair stuff - either the job description or appointment procedure.
Honestly I'm not sure what to do.
While there does not seem to be a lot of enthusiasm for this work, it seems like the kind of thing that should move forward before it is needed.
Perhaps we just need to wait for the accountability task force to remind us that we don't have these things? Or do we need to declare the RIPE Chair list a task force so that Daniel will insist that we have a deadline? ;)
Cheers,
-- Shane
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJZHA8iAAoJEPXqNN7m+XRfQIoH/iVbulgi2aGqS8I/v8sKk1Lz ZGN/v4jenVIknDzZQvA8FL7U04Y9bNh90htDGnN1XynaRPZOXotTzcOnAK06SlE0 ubaJCUJbPiAV/heP+5kO6K6cYMsFsQc3uN1RE7tdttmK+pWPnhpFGiF5CDpD33+V ylmeKZTOuLDPxeUf0aWBUo50shtJcql6QEuB1m7knHhuOA6GcspRgn25kFANhAgD VQPvF13r+JDLej+kqTJn+36x0eTtkGctxDkdlHl9hu3+wKGGUSZ8CpwypDjDpPrg jpEmb6oghYF8q+QBLvZbLD79aUw6pIHErQwfB0xOoHATSDVnLQKeO7evHShEodo= =yqfK -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On 17 May 2017, at 09:51, Mirjam Kuehne <mir@ripe.net> wrote:
Hans Petter and I are working on a RIPE Labs article ... We are planning to publish the article next week.
Thanks Mirjam. Why does this need/deserve a RIPE Labs article? Is there some reason why it gets published there instead of this list? It seems wrong to be pushing material to RIPE Labs when we already have a mailing list already in place for the topic that’s under discussion. Having two or more fora discussing the same thing will lead to confusion and misunderstanding. And needlessly waste time and resources. That would be unfortunate.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Hi Jim, The idea was to summarise the main outcomes of the discussion we had in Madrid in a RIPE Labs article and send the link to this list rather than sending a long email. We can then also distribute this link more widely and encourage more people to join this list. And it would be a follow-up to the RIPE Labs article Hans Petter published before Madrid, so we would have everything in one place with pointers to each other. Kind regards, Mirjam On 17/05/17 13:07, Jim Reid wrote:
On 17 May 2017, at 09:51, Mirjam Kuehne <mir@ripe.net> wrote:
Hans Petter and I are working on a RIPE Labs article ... We are planning to publish the article next week.
Thanks Mirjam.
Why does this need/deserve a RIPE Labs article? Is there some reason why it gets published there instead of this list?
It seems wrong to be pushing material to RIPE Labs when we already have a mailing list already in place for the topic that’s under discussion. Having two or more fora discussing the same thing will lead to confusion and misunderstanding. And needlessly waste time and resources. That would be unfortunate.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJZHDCaAAoJEPXqNN7m+XRfz7QIAIEccRLT1XZoA0IH7tWLVenj H9s4kCoNek80b2VxG95kdUZrVKbjMUiNsAW9Gz+Zt9OQE7/8qQE1mSFKZXTwqP/K 50uZuw1/UpNwZTqDuspUMzaKWDZKi1tc35IWsH+F0jmyR9D7tx+XhzL9nQb0HoH9 R+1xCtvRdgv/Lz4DksEp9vxdTjqg7VV5+nrb8uKrTfzWu0WYYlKzZkEy0b/cFpCa ZAhQrHrBNtzlSJTOumpWROvKLUFMeXhko7oMl0M44wRxiIy3c6jFdHwrB+Me8VBb lVKvwiEkAmwMI3ctf07ZoK0Iw9l1GJmrBdSiCuV6XPYGxmerm3OY4JhsjKFEEuw= =3Z/W -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On 17.05.17 10:33 , Shane Kerr wrote:
All,
Another RIPE meeting has come and gone, but I don't remember any discussion about the missing RIPE Chair stuff - either the job description or appointment procedure.
Honestly I'm not sure what to do.
While there does not seem to be a lot of enthusiasm for this work, it seems like the kind of thing that should move forward before it is needed.
Perhaps we just need to wait for the accountability task force to remind us that we don't have these things? Or do we need to declare the RIPE Chair list a task force so that Daniel will insist that we have a deadline?
In that case Daniel will just throw up silently in a corner somewhere, clean up after himself and make a firm resolution to avoid 'told-you-so' knee jerks a couple of years later ... To say it again: My insistence on an end-date for the 'Formalisation Working Group' charter were not at all to expedite the work but solely to avoid a limitless charter for a permanent meeting of amateur lawyers likely to kill RIPE in the long term if left totally unchecked. Daniel
On 17 May 2017, at 11:01, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> wrote:
To say it again: My insistence on an end-date for the 'Formalisation Working Group' charter were not at all to expedite the work but solely to avoid a limitless charter for a permanent meeting of amateur lawyers likely to kill RIPE in the long term if left totally unchecked.
+100. Mind you once the wannabe layers run amok, we can always bring in Bijal to nuke the planet from orbit, just to be sure. :-)
KISS I hear Rob saying, KISS On Wednesday, 17 May 2017, Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> wrote:
On 17 May 2017, at 11:01, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net <javascript:;>> wrote:
To say it again: My insistence on an end-date for the 'Formalisation Working Group' charter were not at all to expedite the work but solely to avoid a limitless charter for a permanent meeting of amateur lawyers likely to kill RIPE in the long term if left totally unchecked.
+100.
Mind you once the wannabe layers run amok, we can always bring in Bijal to nuke the planet from orbit, just to be sure. :-)
On 17/05/17 09:33, Shane Kerr wrote:
All,
Another RIPE meeting has come and gone, but I don't remember any discussion about the missing RIPE Chair stuff - either the job description or appointment procedure.
Honestly I'm not sure what to do.
Well, we could all try minding our own business. It may well be that we don't need either a job description or appointment procedure.
While there does not seem to be a lot of enthusiasm for this work, it seems like the kind of thing that should move forward before it is needed.
It may never be needed. The time spent would be wasted in that case.
Perhaps we just need to wait for the accountability task force to remind us that we don't have these things? Or do we need to declare the RIPE Chair list a task force so that Daniel will insist that we have a deadline? ;)
Could I make a suggestion: 1. RIPE Chair job description: Doing the sort of things that the RIPE Chair should do. 2. RIPE Chair selection process: Selected as needed Both of these definitions seem to have worked fine in the past and have the benefit of not involving legions of amateur lawyers who might be better involved in doing something useful. I will now keep quiet and do something useful Nigel
Hi, On Wed, 17 May 2017, Nigel Titley wrote: (...)
Could I make a suggestion:
1. RIPE Chair job description: Doing the sort of things that the RIPE Chair should do.
2. RIPE Chair selection process: Selected as needed
Both of these definitions seem to have worked fine in the past and have the benefit of not involving legions of amateur lawyers who might be better involved in doing something useful.
I will now keep quiet and do something useful
Nigel
In this line of secret-wg suggestions, i would also like to ask on this list what do you think about the Vatican Chair selection process. Can we copy it freely (with or without smoke?), or is there any Copyright in place...? ps: Will also try to join Nigel in doing something useful soon. :-) Cheers, Carlos
Carlos, At 2017-05-17 11:56:06 +0100 Carlos Friacas <cfriacas@fccn.pt> wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, 17 May 2017, Nigel Titley wrote:
(...)
Could I make a suggestion:
1. RIPE Chair job description: Doing the sort of things that the RIPE Chair should do.
2. RIPE Chair selection process: Selected as needed
Both of these definitions seem to have worked fine in the past and have the benefit of not involving legions of amateur lawyers who might be better involved in doing something useful.
I will now keep quiet and do something useful
In this line of secret-wg suggestions, i would also like to ask on this list what do you think about the Vatican Chair selection process.
Can we copy it freely (with or without smoke?), or is there any Copyright in place...?
The letter covering this was written in 1996, and does claim to be copyrighted: http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_constitutions/documents/h... As an amateur lawyer, my understanding is that since the Vatican City has signed the Berne Convention for Copyright this will remain copyrighted until 70 years after the death of the author. Since Pope John-Paul II died in 2005 this will remain under copyright until 2075, by which time we may still be discussing the RIPE Chair selection process. So this may indeed be a good starting point. Since we want a process resistant to hacking, we should probably review Bruce Schneier's excellent write-up: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/02/hacking_the_pap.html Not surprisingly, the Wikipedia has a nice write up about the history of the process, including this interesting quote: The lack of an institutionalized process for papal succession was prone to religious schism, and many papal claimants before 1059 are currently regarded by the Church as antipopes, although most are not. Furthermore, the frequent requirement of secular approval of elected popes significantly lengthened periods of sede vacante and weakened the papacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_selection_before_1059 Luckily we work in an industry without any religious wars, so we don't have to worry about this sort of thing. Cheers, -- Shane
On 17/05/17 12:49, Shane Kerr wrote:
The lack of an institutionalized process for papal succession was prone to religious schism, and many papal claimants before 1059 are currently regarded by the Church as antipopes, although most are not. Furthermore, the frequent requirement of secular approval of elected popes significantly lengthened periods of sede vacante and weakened the papacy.
I rather like the idea of having an AntiChair. You would have to keep it out of the same room as the Chair of course, otherwise the well known principles first postulated by Mr Dirac would come into play and Norway would become a radioactive crater.
On 17 May 2017, at 13:32, Nigel Titley <nigel@titley.com> wrote:
I rather like the idea of having an AntiChair. You would have to keep it out of the same room as the Chair of course, otherwise the well known principles first postulated by Mr Dirac would come into play and Norway would become a radioactive crater.
This is an irresistable rat-hole. Sorry. :-) I suppose the AntiChair and Chair could be in the same room at the same time. It depends on the size of the room and what forces (magnets?) can be applied to keep them far enough apart. Oh and if 150kg of matter and antimatter combined (two average sized humans), it would be important to know just how big and radioactive that Norwegian crater would be. Perhaps we could set up a Working Group to consider these issues. IMO, this would be a much more productive use of our time than discussing process. YMMV.
On 17 May 2017, at 14:58, Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> wrote: I suppose the AntiChair and Chair could be in the same room at the same time. It depends on the size of the room and what forces (magnets?) can be applied to keep them far enough apart. Oh and if 150kg of matter and antimatter combined (two average sized humans), it would be important to know just how big and radioactive that Norwegian crater would be. Perhaps we could set up a Working Group to consider these issues.
You should have guessed there is a web page out there for that, right? http://www.edwardmuller.com/index.php?Page=calculator Joao
On 17/05/2017 11:35, Nigel Titley wrote:
On 17/05/17 09:33, Shane Kerr wrote:
All,
Another RIPE meeting has come and gone, but I don't remember any discussion about the missing RIPE Chair stuff - either the job description or appointment procedure.
Honestly I'm not sure what to do.
Well, we could all try minding our own business. It may well be that we don't need either a job description or appointment procedure.
Isn't the process (however strict or loose that may be) for how our community chooses a chair our business? I certainly tend to think it is.
While there does not seem to be a lot of enthusiasm for this work, it seems like the kind of thing that should move forward before it is needed.
It may never be needed. The time spent would be wasted in that case.
Sadly I am not convinced that Hans Petter is either immortal nor do I assume he'll always want to do the job he's doing right now.
Perhaps we just need to wait for the accountability task force to remind us that we don't have these things? Or do we need to declare the RIPE Chair list a task force so that Daniel will insist that we have a deadline? ;)
Could I make a suggestion:
1. RIPE Chair job description: Doing the sort of things that the RIPE Chair should do.
2. RIPE Chair selection process: Selected as needed
Both of these definitions seem to have worked fine in the past and have the benefit of not involving legions of amateur lawyers who might be better involved in doing something useful.
We've done this once and that one time the community seemed to be asking for something a little more concrete than the (albeit excellent) decision Rob made. I don't think it's a sufficient data point! I will admit that I'm a little worried about terms like "amateur lawyers" being thrown around in relation to this and the Accountability Taskforce. It seems far more pointed than is necessary or justified. I know that I am more in favour of process than a lot of people in this discussion, but I'm also very much in favour of suitable levels of transparency and the benefits they bring. I also believe there's a middle ground here. I look forward to reading the RIPE Labs article and going from there. Brian Brian Nisbet Network Operations Manager HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland +35316609040 brian.nisbet@heanet.ie www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270
On 17 May 2017, at 12:29, Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet@heanet.ie> wrote:
I know that I am more in favour of process than a lot of people in this discussion, but I'm also very much in favour of suitable levels of transparency and the benefits they bring.
It's possible to have fine things like transparency (and openness and accountability and... a pony) with minimal amounts of process. These are not mutually exclusive. Too many people either seem to have forgotten that or believe it can't be done. And the more effort that goes into developing process, the less there is that's going into more productive activities. I think that was the gist of what Nigel just said. BTW, decision-making and procedures at RIPE are already more sclerotic than at the ITU. That should be ringing alarm bells. Just sayin'...
On 17/05/17 13:08, Jim Reid wrote:
On 17 May 2017, at 12:29, Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet@heanet.ie> wrote:
I know that I am more in favour of process than a lot of people in this discussion, but I'm also very much in favour of suitable levels of transparency and the benefits they bring.
It's possible to have fine things like transparency (and openness and accountability and... a pony) with minimal amounts of process. These are not mutually exclusive. Too many people either seem to have forgotten that or believe it can't be done. And the more effort that goes into developing process, the less there is that's going into more productive activities. I think that was the gist of what Nigel just said.
It was indeed what I was trying to say. Writing procedure for events that 1) Occur very infrequently 2) Have fairly minimal impact when they do Is, in my view, wasted time. If, in the worst case, Hans Petter should step under a bus, or fall a victim to Viola-player's necrotic syndrome then the world will not end, neither will the RIPE Community. We will have time to make a fairly leisurely selection of a replacement by whatever means seem appropriate at the time.
BTW, decision-making and procedures at RIPE are already more sclerotic than at the ITU. That should be ringing alarm bells. Just sayin'...
+1
On 17/05/2017 13:23, Nigel Titley wrote:
On 17/05/17 13:08, Jim Reid wrote:
On 17 May 2017, at 12:29, Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet@heanet.ie> wrote:
I know that I am more in favour of process than a lot of people in this discussion, but I'm also very much in favour of suitable levels of transparency and the benefits they bring.
It's possible to have fine things like transparency (and openness and accountability and... a pony) with minimal amounts of process. These are not mutually exclusive. Too many people either seem to have forgotten that or believe it can't be done. And the more effort that goes into developing process, the less there is that's going into more productive activities. I think that was the gist of what Nigel just said.
It was indeed what I was trying to say. Writing procedure for events that
1) Occur very infrequently 2) Have fairly minimal impact when they do
Is, in my view, wasted time.
I'm ok with minimal amounts of process (albeit I'd probably like a little more), but right now we have none. I also think, given the way we go about things and the prominence of the position, that the long term lack of a RIPE Chair would have more impact than people think. Would it change the world in general? No, but I'm not sure I agree with "fairly minimal." Honestly, if the process is "The existing RIPE Chair shall choose a successor without need for consultation or referral. In the case that that isn't possible the WG Chairs will have a dance off" then I'd be happier because it would be out in the open.
BTW, decision-making and procedures at RIPE are already more sclerotic than at the ITU. That should be ringing alarm bells. Just sayin'...
+1
I will admit I have never visited the ITU, but, given what you and others have told me, Jim, I find that hard to believe. But anyway. Brian
On 17 May 2017, at 14:18, Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet@heanet.ie> wrote:
I'm ok with minimal amounts of process (albeit I'd probably like a little more), but right now we have none.
We did/do have a process, albeit an undocumented one. Rob was replaced by Hans Petter. QED. Rob selected his successor and that decision was sort of endorsed by the community. All of that took place about a year or so before Rob stepped down. [Rob may well have taken soundings before then: no matter.] It was quick, simple, transparent enough IMO and I think we’re all happy with the outcome even if some were uncomfortable how we got there. I’d be inclined to stick with that approach unless someone can come up with something better. For some definition of better which includes minimal process.
I also think, given the way we go about things and the prominence of the position, that the long term lack of a RIPE Chair would have more impact than people think.
I’d agree with you if anyone was advocating the long term lack of a RIPE Chair. But nobody is proposing that.
I will admit I have never visited the ITU, but, given what you and others have told me, Jim, I find that hard to believe. But anyway.
I had the misfortune to be at SG20 in March. Documents got consensus at that meeting. They became ITU Recommendations (in other words international standards) just over four weeks later.
On 17/05/2017 14:48, Jim Reid wrote:
On 17 May 2017, at 14:18, Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet@heanet.ie> wrote:
I'm ok with minimal amounts of process (albeit I'd probably like a little more), but right now we have none.
We did/do have a process, albeit an undocumented one. Rob was replaced by Hans Petter. QED.
If it's not documented, it may as well not exist.
Rob selected his successor and that decision was sort of endorsed by the community. All of that took place about a year or so before Rob stepped down. [Rob may well have taken soundings before then: no matter.] It was quick, simple, transparent enough IMO and I think we’re all happy with the outcome even if some were uncomfortable how we got there.
I’d be inclined to stick with that approach unless someone can come up with something better. For some definition of better which includes minimal process.
Again, if that's what we decide, great. But can we please write it down? Now, I don't tend to think it's a great process from the point of view of transparency, diversity or openness, but I explicitly don't want to discuss the colour of bikesheds here. Which is why I'm still going to stick with looking forward to what is going to be in the article.
I also think, given the way we go about things and the prominence of the position, that the long term lack of a RIPE Chair would have more impact than people think.
I’d agree with you if anyone was advocating the long term lack of a RIPE Chair. But nobody is proposing that.
Long term may be a variable term in this fast paced world. But I certainly amn't suggesting instant succession is necessarily required.
I will admit I have never visited the ITU, but, given what you and others have told me, Jim, I find that hard to believe. But anyway.
I had the misfortune to be at SG20 in March. Documents got consensus at that meeting. They became ITU Recommendations (in other words international standards) just over four weeks later.
Impressive. I would ask how long they were being prepared and discussed, but let's not get into that here. It can be something we can discuss over a pint at some point. Thanks, Brian
Hi, On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 01:23:20PM +0100, Nigel Titley wrote:
If, in the worst case, Hans Petter should step under a bus, or fall a victim to Viola-player's necrotic syndrome then the world will not end, neither will the RIPE Community. We will have time to make a fairly leisurely selection of a replacement by whatever means seem appropriate at the time.
I've been told that the process of "find a retired APWG chair, and select him!" has worked in 100% of all cases nicely so far, and a new candiate might be around this time next year. So we just need to keep Hans-Petter away from buses for a time. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
I've been told that the process of "find a retired APWG chair, and select him!" has worked in 100% of all cases nicely so far, and a new candiate might be around this time next year.
Hmmmmmmm........
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 03:32:51PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote: Hi
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 01:23:20PM +0100, Nigel Titley wrote:
If, in the worst case, Hans Petter should step under a bus, or fall a victim to Viola-player's necrotic syndrome then the world will not end, neither will the RIPE Community. We will have time to make a fairly leisurely selection of a replacement by whatever means seem appropriate at the time.
I've been told that the process of "find a retired APWG chair, and select him!" has worked in 100% of all cases nicely so far, and a new candiate might be around this time next year.
Well, this seems to me like a perfectly well prepared implementation of Nigel's simple proposal. ;-)
So we just need to keep Hans-Petter away from buses for a time.
+1 Piotr -- gucio -> Piotr Strzyżewski E-mail: Piotr.Strzyzewski@polsl.pl
On 17.05.17 13:29 , Brian Nisbet wrote:
... I will admit that I'm a little worried about terms like "amateur lawyers" being thrown around in relation to this and the Accountability Taskforce. It seems far more pointed than is necessary or justified. ...
I stand by that rhetoric device which I used in this specific context. It came to mind when Shane used a contribution I made in a different but related discussion to slight me by changing the meaning of what I said into the opposite and by deliberately ignoring the different context as well as my explicit reasoning. See <40ad8e83-af61-e7fd-53a9-68b55cacb00c@ripe.net> and <78ac6707-393e-9eb6-5c12-39721915b54a@ripe.net>. 'Amateur lawyers' is also justified because we, as a community, tend to go straight into arguing about details whenever someone proposes a process or formalism. We hardly ever stop to consider what the problem at hand really is, what our strategic long-term goals are and whether the process or formalism is the appropriate way to achieve our goals. And on top of that we tend to be very amateur in considering any possible risks or side effects of the formalisms and processes we 'design'. I have been guilty of this myself in a distant past. Do I need to dig into the address policy archives or can we take it as read? As a technical community we are not unique in this regard. In the past RIPE had Rob Blokzijl to counteract this badness. Today I fear that before long we will make the same mistakes as these other communities. It is so easy to fall for the non-sequitur [newspeak: fake reasoning] that formal process is a necessary condition for 'ripe values' and all other goodness. Form there it is not far to the shouting down of anyone who cautions against over-formalisation by questioning their intentions and worse. Caveat emptor. Daniel
On 17 May 2017, at 12:35, Nigel Titley <nigel@titley.com> wrote:
On 17/05/17 09:33, Shane Kerr wrote:
All,
Another RIPE meeting has come and gone, but I don't remember any discussion about the missing RIPE Chair stuff - either the job description or appointment procedure.
Honestly I'm not sure what to do.
Well, we could all try minding our own business. It may well be that we don't need either a job description or appointment procedure.
I believe I heard the RIPE chair saying he wanted at least the appointment procedure, therefore we need one.
While there does not seem to be a lot of enthusiasm for this work, it seems like the kind of thing that should move forward before it is needed.
It may never be needed. The time spent would be wasted in that case.
I don’t know if that is because you expect RIPE’s lifetime to be shorter than Hans Peter’s or some other reason but even if that is so, given the above and the general principle of being open and transparent, having one is a good thing(tm). Just keep it as simple as possible. Joao
On 17.05.17 12:35 , Nigel Titley wrote:
Could I make a suggestion:
1. RIPE Chair job description: Doing the sort of things that the RIPE Chair should do.
2. RIPE Chair selection process: Selected as needed
Both of these definitions seem to have worked fine in the past and have the benefit of not involving legions of amateur lawyers who might be better involved in doing something useful.
I second this proposal. Let me propose a friendly amendment based on both the concerns about continuity and the axiom that a sound minimal process has to have three elements. [https://de.wiktionary.org/wiki/aller_guten_Dinge_sind_drei] 3. RIPE Chair Continuity: The RIPE Chair may appoint and dismiss a vice chair. Daniel
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 04:09:56PM +0200, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
On 17.05.17 12:35 , Nigel Titley wrote:
Could I make a suggestion:
1. RIPE Chair job description: Doing the sort of things that the RIPE Chair should do.
2. RIPE Chair selection process: Selected as needed
Both of these definitions seem to have worked fine in the past and have the benefit of not involving legions of amateur lawyers who might be better involved in doing something useful.
I second this proposal.
Let me propose a friendly amendment based on both the concerns about continuity and the axiom that a sound minimal process has to have three elements. [https://de.wiktionary.org/wiki/aller_guten_Dinge_sind_drei]
3. RIPE Chair Continuity: The RIPE Chair may appoint and dismiss a vice chair.
The job description is fine, however the second point suggested by Nigel is too coarse. While I appreciate the simplicity of deferring, I do not support this method. Such a method is entirely arbitrary, which either means: the position of RIPE Chair in itself is meaningless, or that we accept that decisions are made behind closed doors. Jim correctly pointed out that it is a strawman to suggest or even merely imply that any other method will be a bureaucratic nightmare driven by "amateur lawyers". If we as community can manage to put together an Executive Board, a team of Arbiters, and a Program Committee, surely we can manage to figure out how and who should appointed a RIPE chair. Kind regards, Job
On 17 May 2017, at 16:49, Job Snijders <job@ntt.net> wrote:
Jim correctly pointed out that it is a strawman to suggest or even merely imply that any other method will be a bureaucratic nightmare driven by "amateur lawyers".
I didn’t say that at all Job. At least I thought I didn’t say that. If anything, a discussion of other methods can all too easily become the start of a slippery slope which ends in a bureaucratic nightmare. We have to be careful to avoid that. Or waste our time shed-painting and rat-holing. I am very firmly of the view that we are in danger of letting the “amateur lawyers” drive us into a bureaucratic nightmare where the process -- and rigidly following it no matter what -- is more important than the objective. Some might think we’ve already let that happen too many times. This enthusiasm for process seems to be mushrooming across all sorts of RIPE activities. And at other Internet institutions too. Ho hum. It’s all very well to discuss new or improved ways of doing things. And to question the status quo. Great. But when the suggestions go in the direction of “more process”, it's unlikely to produce outcomes which are better. IMO “more process” rarely, if ever, improves matters. It’ll just make things much, much worse. It will be a very sad day if Rob’s key legacy -- keep it simple and use common sense -- gets ignored or forgotten.
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 06:05:45PM +0100, Jim Reid wrote:
On 17 May 2017, at 16:49, Job Snijders <job@ntt.net> wrote: Jim correctly pointed out that it is a strawman to suggest or even merely imply that any other method will be a bureaucratic nightmare driven by "amateur lawyers".
I didn’t say that at all Job. At least I thought I didn’t say that. If anything, a discussion of other methods can all too easily become the start of a slippery slope which ends in a bureaucratic nightmare. We have to be careful to avoid that. Or waste our time shed-painting and rat-holing.
OK. I took your phrasing: "It's possible to have fine things like transparency (and openness and accountability and... a pony) with minimal amounts of process. These are not mutually exclusive. Too many people either seem to have forgotten that or believe it can't be done." as a polite version of pointing out a fallacy. :-) Kind regards, Job
On 17/05/17 16:49, Job Snijders wrote:
If we as community can manage to put together an Executive Board, a team of Arbiters, and a Program Committee, surely we can manage to figure out how and who should appointed a RIPE chair.
I would respectfully remind you that the EB is elected by the RIPE NCC members and the Arbiters are appointed by the General meeting. Neither are actually put together by "The Community" (tm). Nigel
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 07:09:53PM +0100, Nigel Titley wrote:
On 17/05/17 16:49, Job Snijders wrote:
If we as community can manage to put together an Executive Board, a team of Arbiters, and a Program Committee, surely we can manage to figure out how and who should appointed a RIPE chair.
I would respectfully remind you that the EB is elected by the RIPE NCC members and the Arbiters are appointed by the General meeting. Neither are actually put together by "The Community" (tm).
Do you believe that "The Community [tm]" and "RIPE NCC members" are significantly disjoint groups of stakeholders? Are they so far disjoint in their instantiation, history, and operations; that analogies are inappropiate? Kind regards, Job
On 17/05/17 19:19, Job Snijders wrote:
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 07:09:53PM +0100, Nigel Titley wrote:
On 17/05/17 16:49, Job Snijders wrote:
If we as community can manage to put together an Executive Board, a team of Arbiters, and a Program Committee, surely we can manage to figure out how and who should appointed a RIPE chair.
I would respectfully remind you that the EB is elected by the RIPE NCC members and the Arbiters are appointed by the General meeting. Neither are actually put together by "The Community" (tm).
Do you believe that "The Community [tm]" and "RIPE NCC members" are significantly disjoint groups of stakeholders? Are they so far disjoint in their instantiation, history, and operations; that analogies are inappropiate?
Analogies are fine, and there is, I agree, significant overlap between the members of the two communities but there are extremely significant differences: the main one of which is that the RIPE NCC membership is precisely defined but the RIPE Community is not. Nigel
Do you believe that "The Community [tm]" and "RIPE NCC members" are significantly disjoint groups of stakeholders?
i do. i am a member of the ripe community, but maz attends the members' meeting and casts the vote for iij. randy
On 17 May 2017, at 19:09, Nigel Titley <nigel@titley.com> wrote:
On 17/05/17 16:49, Job Snijders wrote:
If we as community can manage to put together an Executive Board, a team of Arbiters, and a Program Committee, surely we can manage to figure out how and who should appointed a RIPE chair.
I would respectfully remind you that the EB is elected by the RIPE NCC members and the Arbiters are appointed by the General meeting. Neither are actually put together by "The Community" (tm).
Note too that all three groups are different, have different roles and are selected in different ways. This is healthy. There’s no quest (yet) to apply exactly one all-singing, all-dancing appointment process for all of them. Therefore it doesn’t follow that we have to use one of those methods for selecting a RIPE Chair. I hope we settle on the right method for the matter at hand, whatever method that might be.
as you allude, as a culture we have dangerous desires to over-specify, over-formalize, and write horrifyingly detailed (and therefore fragile) rules. a view of the world as a scary collection of corner cases. it may come from $dayjobs writing code and configuring routers, precision tasks. do we really have that many important decisions to make? let's not over-inflate our importance. [ e.g. address policy is only a career in the arin and apnic regions; ripe is toward the other end of the alphabet. ] we don't need a king or a legislature. as lynn alluded, we seem to most need someone to remind us to chill out and keep it simple. rob was very good at that (as, i would note, was dr postel). randy
On 17/05/17 15:09, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
On 17.05.17 12:35 , Nigel Titley wrote:
Could I make a suggestion:
1. RIPE Chair job description: Doing the sort of things that the RIPE Chair should do.
2. RIPE Chair selection process: Selected as needed
Both of these definitions seem to have worked fine in the past and have the benefit of not involving legions of amateur lawyers who might be better involved in doing something useful.
I second this proposal.
Let me propose a friendly amendment based on both the concerns about continuity and the axiom that a sound minimal process has to have three elements. [https://de.wiktionary.org/wiki/aller_guten_Dinge_sind_drei]
3. RIPE Chair Continuity: The RIPE Chair may appoint and dismiss a vice chair.
An excellent amendment. Thank you Nigel
On 17 May 2017, at 12:35, Nigel Titley <nigel@titley.com> wrote:
On 17/05/17 09:33, Shane Kerr wrote:
All,
Another RIPE meeting has come and gone, but I don't remember any discussion about the missing RIPE Chair stuff - either the job description or appointment procedure.
Honestly I'm not sure what to do.
Well, we could all try minding our own business. It may well be that we don't need either a job description or appointment procedure.
While there does not seem to be a lot of enthusiasm for this work, it seems like the kind of thing that should move forward before it is needed.
It may never be needed. The time spent would be wasted in that case.
Perhaps we just need to wait for the accountability task force to remind us that we don't have these things? Or do we need to declare the RIPE Chair list a task force so that Daniel will insist that we have a deadline? ;)
Could I make a suggestion:
1. RIPE Chair job description: Doing the sort of things that the RIPE Chair should do.
2. RIPE Chair selection process: Selected as needed
I do not find this particularly helpful I’m afraid. This is neither a job description, nor a process. And while I also don’t want something over prescriptive, I do think that unless we do away with the concept of a RIPE chair, we need to define it in a way that people can understand it. Nurani
Both of these definitions seem to have worked fine in the past and have the benefit of not involving legions of amateur lawyers who might be better involved in doing something useful.
I will now keep quiet and do something useful
Nigel
Let’s see if I can spell the “simple proposal” in a different way. I believe what Daniel is saying is that this is the sort of role that is better defined by carrying it out day after day. If at some point the chair were to take a decision or action that alienated enough people then those people would raise the issue. A wise chair would spot potential conflict before it happened and engage in consultation before making the decision or having that decision/action carried out by other parties, thus covering both actions by RIPE as well as actions directed towards RIPE from elsewhere. That is sort of a self-regulating mechanism when the majority of parties are reasonable. It makes the role flexible enough to deal with emerging issues. I think this has been shown to work in several contexts and the one missing bit for this to fully work would be a mechanism to ensure openness, perhaps a spot at the plenary of the RIPE meetings were the focus is on reporting by the chair and the interaction between chair and community where that relationship is renewed. This and a list where any subscriber can post to between meetings. A mechanism not only to censor if necessary but also to show support (always necessary), all in the open. Joao
On 18 May 2017, at 08:15, Nurani Nimpuno <nurani@nimblebits.net> wrote:
On 17 May 2017, at 12:35, Nigel Titley <nigel@titley.com> wrote:
On 17/05/17 09:33, Shane Kerr wrote:
All,
Another RIPE meeting has come and gone, but I don't remember any discussion about the missing RIPE Chair stuff - either the job description or appointment procedure.
Honestly I'm not sure what to do.
Well, we could all try minding our own business. It may well be that we don't need either a job description or appointment procedure.
While there does not seem to be a lot of enthusiasm for this work, it seems like the kind of thing that should move forward before it is needed.
It may never be needed. The time spent would be wasted in that case.
Perhaps we just need to wait for the accountability task force to remind us that we don't have these things? Or do we need to declare the RIPE Chair list a task force so that Daniel will insist that we have a deadline? ;)
Could I make a suggestion:
1. RIPE Chair job description: Doing the sort of things that the RIPE Chair should do.
2. RIPE Chair selection process: Selected as needed
I do not find this particularly helpful I’m afraid. This is neither a job description, nor a process.
And while I also don’t want something over prescriptive, I do think that unless we do away with the concept of a RIPE chair, we need to define it in a way that people can understand it.
Nurani
Both of these definitions seem to have worked fine in the past and have the benefit of not involving legions of amateur lawyers who might be better involved in doing something useful.
I will now keep quiet and do something useful
Nigel
On 18/05/17 08:54, João Damas wrote:
Let’s see if I can spell the “simple proposal” in a different way.
I believe what Daniel is saying is that this is the sort of role that is better defined by carrying it out day after day.
If at some point the chair were to take a decision or action that alienated enough people then those people would raise the issue. A wise chair would spot potential conflict before it happened and engage in consultation before making the decision or having that decision/action carried out by other parties, thus covering both actions by RIPE as well as actions directed towards RIPE from elsewhere. That is sort of a self-regulating mechanism when the majority of parties are reasonable. It makes the role flexible enough to deal with emerging issues.
I think this has been shown to work in several contexts and the one missing bit for this to fully work would be a mechanism to ensure openness, perhaps a spot at the plenary of the RIPE meetings were the focus is on reporting by the chair and the interaction between chair and community where that relationship is renewed. This and a list where any subscriber can post to between meetings. A mechanism not only to censor if necessary but also to show support (always necessary), all in the open.
I really like this suggestion. It is open and transparent, flexible and not overly prescriptive. Nigel
On 18.05.17 9:54 , João Damas wrote:
Let’s see if I can spell the “simple proposal” in a different way.
I believe what Daniel is saying is that this is the sort of role that is better defined by carrying it out day after day.
If at some point the chair were to take a decision or action that alienated enough people then those people would raise the issue. A wise chair would spot potential conflict before it happened and engage in consultation before making the decision or having that decision/action carried out by other parties, thus covering both actions by RIPE as well as actions directed towards RIPE from elsewhere. That is sort of a self-regulating mechanism when the majority of parties are reasonable. It makes the role flexible enough to deal with emerging issues.
I think this has been shown to work in several contexts and the one missing bit for this to fully work would be a mechanism to ensure openness, perhaps a spot at the plenary of the RIPE meetings were the focus is on reporting by the chair and the interaction between chair and community where that relationship is renewed. This and a list where any subscriber can post to between meetings. A mechanism not only to censor if necessary but also to show support (always necessary), all in the open.
Joao
Well done João! That is the missing piece to make Nigel's proposal into a truly open, inclusive, transparent and sufficient process that is fully in line with RIPE tradition and style. Daniel ---- So we have: 1. RIPE Chair job description: Doing the sort of things that the RIPE Chair should do and actively maintaining an open dialogue with the community. 2. RIPE Chair selection process: Selected as needed. 3. RIPE Chair continuity: The RIPE Chair may appoint and dismiss a vice chair.
On 18 May 2017, at 11:34, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> wrote:
So we have:
1. RIPE Chair job description: Doing the sort of things that the RIPE Chair should do and actively maintaining an open dialogue with the community.
2. RIPE Chair selection process: Selected as needed.
3. RIPE Chair continuity: The RIPE Chair may appoint and dismiss a vice chair.
Works for me. Though to address Nick's point, perhaps change 2 to: 2. RIPE Chair selection and removal process: Selected as needed
On 18/05/17 07:15, Nurani Nimpuno wrote:
1. RIPE Chair job description: Doing the sort of things that the RIPE Chair should do.
2. RIPE Chair selection process: Selected as needed
I do not find this particularly helpful I’m afraid. This is neither a job description, nor a process.
I think you've been in close proximity to ICANN folk for far too long. YOU may not find it helpful but it is in fact a job description and a process. Other people have found it helpful.
And while I also don’t want something over prescriptive, I do think that unless we do away with the concept of a RIPE chair, we need to define it in a way that people can understand it.
There are many positions that don't have a written job description but are nevertheless well regarded, understood and accepted. Nigel
On 18 May 2017, at 10:51, Nigel Titley <nigel@titley.com> wrote:
On 18/05/17 07:15, Nurani Nimpuno wrote:
1. RIPE Chair job description: Doing the sort of things that the RIPE Chair should do.
2. RIPE Chair selection process: Selected as needed
I do not find this particularly helpful I’m afraid. This is neither a job description, nor a process.
I think you've been in close proximity to ICANN folk for far too long.
Ok, that’s a low shot. With that, I think I will withdraw from this discussion. Nurani
YOU may not find it helpful but it is in fact a job description and a process. Other people have found it helpful.
And while I also don’t want something over prescriptive, I do think that unless we do away with the concept of a RIPE chair, we need to define it in a way that people can understand it.
There are many positions that don't have a written job description but are nevertheless well regarded, understood and accepted.
Nigel
Can we all calm down a bit please? We all know each other and I do assume the best intentions on everyone's part. I am also quite sure that we are not out to hurt each other or to have an overly polemic debate. The good thing is that there is a lot of passion here for the future of RIPE. Let's be positive! Daniel On 18.05.17 10:55 , Nurani Nimpuno wrote:
On 18 May 2017, at 10:51, Nigel Titley <nigel@titley.com> wrote:
On 18/05/17 07:15, Nurani Nimpuno wrote:
...
I think you've been in close proximity to ICANN folk for far too long.
Ok, that’s a low shot. With that, I think I will withdraw from this discussion.
Nurani
YOU may not find it helpful but it is in fact a job description and a process. Other people have found it helpful.
And while I also don’t want something over prescriptive, I do think that unless we do away with the concept of a RIPE chair, we need to define it in a way that people can understand it.
There are many positions that don't have a written job description but are nevertheless well regarded, understood and accepted.
Nigel
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 12:51:54PM +0200, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
Can we all calm down a bit please?
We all know each other and I do assume the best intentions on everyone's part. I am also quite sure that we are not out to hurt each other or to have an overly polemic debate.
If we sought to avoid "overly polemic debate", I expect that we'd show restrain in the application of rethorical devices. Also, we should be conservative in our judgement on how other organisations (RIPE NCC, IETF, ITU, ICANN, etc) select their leadership, for better or for worse. Since there is quite some overlap between these communities, unfounded criticism may lead to alienation. Kind regards, Job
On 18.05.17 13:56 , Job Snijders wrote:
If we sought to avoid "overly polemic debate", I expect that we'd show restrain in the application of rethorical devices.
Such as "You are of course entitled to your opinions."? "https://xkcd.com/605/" cannot be repeated often enough. Let me note however, that with that you made the implication, a rhetorical device, that by stating events in the past I was as making predictions about the future. I was not! I just stated that the chair naming their successor has worked once. And it has.
Also, we should be conservative in our judgement on how other organisations (RIPE NCC, IETF, ITU, ICANN, etc) select their leadership, for better or for worse. Since there is quite some overlap between these communities, unfounded criticism may lead to alienation.
Of course we should be conservative in judgement. However I have not heard any judgment of other organisation's procedures in this debate so far. All I have heard here is good arguments that these do not apply to RIPE. Daniel
Job, clearly the question is addressed to you but as this is a public list, I will take the liberty of responding to it from my point of view. On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 4:11 PM, Daniel Karrenberg < daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> wrote:
On 18.05.17 13:56 , Job Snijders wrote:
If we sought to avoid "overly polemic debate", I expect that we'd show restrain in the application of rethorical devices.
Such as "You are of course entitled to your opinions."?
No but I have been reading the following in this thread: "I think you've been in close proximity to ICANN folk for far too long." "wanna-be lawyers" "amateur lawyers" , who apparently, "are likely to kill RIPE in the long term if left totally unchecked." The last one was in your own mail Daniel and bears an accusation as well as a demeaning character. It is unclear who it refers to and what it means in the context of this discussion. It brings obscure unnecessary negativity to the discussion even if you may have had no real intention behind to do so initially. This thread will only improve once it switches from discussing people (their jobs, affiliations and backgrounds etc) to discussing ideas and concepts with substance respectfully. Kind regards Filiz Yilmaz
On 18/05/17 09:55, Nurani Nimpuno wrote:
Ok, that’s a low shot. With that, I think I will withdraw from this discussion.
And since the last thing I want to do is to upset Nurani, I feel it best that I withdraw too. Nigel
I think you've been in close proximity to ICANN folk for far too long. Ok, that’s a low shot. With that, I think I will withdraw from this discussion.
i presumed that both you and nigel were joking. i sure hope so. do not leave your humor by the door with your guns. randy
On 2017-05-18 10:51, Nigel Titley wrote:
1. RIPE Chair job description: Doing the sort of things that the RIPE Chair should do.
2. RIPE Chair selection process: Selected as needed
I do not find this particularly helpful I’m afraid. This is neither a job description, nor a process.
I think you've been in close proximity to ICANN folk for far too long. YOU may not find it helpful but it is in fact a job description and a process. Other people have found it helpful.
It's really not (and the above is an ad-hominem), and while I also don't subscribe to the notion of having everyday life defined to the minute, it did make me wonder what it actually *is* that a RIPE chair should do. Turns out there's a handy draft published on the NCC's website, perhaps that could be a decent starting point. Similarly, this whole discussion was started by people raising understandable issues with the current selection procedure. I have my issues with the proposal draft for that one as it is, but 'as needed' seems a tad bit underspecified for a community that claims to be open and transparent. Jelte
Jelte Jansen wrote:
Similarly, this whole discussion was started by people raising understandable issues with the current selection procedure. I have my issues with the proposal draft for that one as it is, but 'as needed' seems a tad bit underspecified for a community that claims to be open and transparent.
more to the point, if the position of ripe chair has responsibilities of any importance, we need to have a think about what happens if we end up with an incompetent or worse still, a malevolent ripe chair. Right now, the draft ripe chair function description seems to suggest that there are duties of some importance to the ripe community:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/chair/draft-ripe-chair-function-descri...
There is no shortage of examples where a choice of leader has caused problems. Usually the options for dealing with this, if it is considered necessary to deal with it in the first place, are to ensure damage limitation of one form or another, i.e. term limits, easy methods of defenestration, inability of leader to change rules without full stakeholder support, ability to nominate vice-chair independently of chair, etc. Nick
Hi all, This conversation seems to be ratholing between “some process” and “no process.” As was pointed out earlier, when Rob announced Hans Petter as his successor, one of the first tasks placed on him was to have “some process” in place before we as a community need to exercise it. This process should not be burdensome, it need not be wordy, but I imagine it warrants more than a couple of sentences given the role of the RIPE Chairperson. Our institutional memories may mean we tend to skip over what outsiders to the community believe is important simply because to us it’s obvious. I think we have already had some good suggestions as part of this discussion (although I don’t want to rat-hole on which dances should form part of the dance-off). Bringing together some of what we’ve seen so far: 1. The RIPE Chairperson’s job description is as detailed in the description on the RIPE website[1], but not limited by that as the requirements of the community change. The emphasis is on maintaining an open, inclusive, community and dialogue. 2. The RIPE Chairperson is appointed by his/her predecessor, but serves the RIPE community. 3. The RIPE Chairperson may appoint and dismiss a vice chair. [1] https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/chair/draft-ripe-chair-function-descri... [Ah, as I write this I see others have come up with largely the same, is this what consensus looks like?] Rob
On 18.05.17 12:43 , Rob Evans wrote:
Hi all,
This conversation seems to be ratholing between “some process” and “no process.”
As was pointed out earlier, when Rob announced Hans Petter as his successor, one of the first tasks placed on him was to have “some process” in place before we as a community need to exercise it. This process should not be burdensome, it need not be wordy, but I imagine it warrants more than a couple of sentences given the role of the RIPE Chairperson. Our institutional memories may mean we tend to skip over what outsiders to the community believe is important simply because to us it’s obvious.
I think we have already had some good suggestions as part of this discussion (although I don’t want to rat-hole on which dances should form part of the dance-off). Bringing together some of what we’ve seen so far:
1. The RIPE Chairperson’s job description is as detailed in the description on the RIPE website[1], but not limited by that as the requirements of the community change. The emphasis is on maintaining an open, inclusive, community and dialogue.
2. The RIPE Chairperson is appointed by his/her predecessor, but serves the RIPE community.
3. The RIPE Chairperson may appoint and dismiss a vice chair.
[1] https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/chair/draft-ripe-chair-function-descri...
[Ah, as I write this I see others have come up with largely the same, is this what consensus looks like?]
Rob
I do *not at all* like https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/chair/draft-ripe-chair-function-descri.... It is waaaaayyyyy too prescriptive and reads like a job ad. It is the absolute opposite of KISS. It is also quite dangerous: Imagine the ways real antagonists could abuse this to entangle the RIPE chair in useless but endless debate and discredit RIPE in the process. If you do not believe in antagonists to RIPE or the RIPE chair, substitute well meaning community members. I strongly suggest we avoid references to this text. Otherwise I think we have positive movement and maybe even rough consensus??????? Daniel
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 01:08:23PM +0200, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
Otherwise I think we have positive movement and maybe even rough consensus???????
Sure, if you ignore the people that stated that "selected as needed" is not acceptable. Kind regards, Job
On 18.05.17 13:19 , Job Snijders wrote:
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 01:08:23PM +0200, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
Otherwise I think we have positive movement and maybe even rough consensus???????
Sure, if you ignore the people that stated that "selected as needed" is not acceptable.
Kind regards,
Job
I was referring to Rob Evans' proposal: "The RIPE Chairperson is appointed by his/her predecessor, but serves the RIPE community." Daniel
On 2017-05-18 13:08, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
I do *not at all* like https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/chair/draft-ripe-chair-function-descri....
It is waaaaayyyyy too prescriptive and reads like a job ad. It is the absolute opposite of KISS.
Fair enough; but right now, it's all I could find when I was wondering what it is a RIPE chair should do; WG chairs and PC members have a function description and an actual appointment process, but the supposedly more important and central function of RIPE chair does not, which, to me, seems a little weird. Anyhow, some of the first few bullets (and the last) of the first part (responsibilities) of said draft don't seem that bad to me and I could definitely see those as a function description that is clear and simple. The tasks part is indeed too detailed for me. I have no opinion about the term (which is also related to the selection method). 'chair does what chair should do' is also very much not KISS, since it's both unclear and meaningless. It also begs the question, 'according to whom?'. Jelte
i attend ripe meetings. i do not attend arin, which i co-founded. i do not attend nanog, to which i came early in at least three iterations. i do not attend afnog which i co-founded. i do not attend apnic, where i was an early contributor. lacnic has too many norte colialists. and i do not read their lists. i still attend ripe. because it is an admirable attempt at a civilized but loose cooperation in a diverse society. and it has been 25 years of a loose cooperation with rob blokzijl's delicate hand reminding us to keep it simple and keep it civil. and let's face it, the NCC was invented to hold more than enough bureaucrazy for us all, and keep it away from the dinner table. :) as i write code, configure routers, do measurement research, admin servers, ... i too am drawn to fine grained rule making; especially as the culture of my youth is rule obsessed (and look at it now). but i voted with my feet and moved to a culture more known for civility, cooperation, and consensus, japan (we'll skip what's under the waterline; we're all funny monkeys). sadly, it is an adage that the vast majority of programmers add more code, not remove code. similarly, rule-making seems to beget more rule-making, with rare exceptions. so those of us who are enamored of informal cooperation and simplicity react as if seeing the start of a primrose path. on the other hand, those of us who have concerns for socio-political threats are very uncomfortable with a lack of clear rules. and this sure appears to be an epoch of real world sociopathy. and i think we all want the best for the ripe community. and it is ok to not be of a single mind; in fact, it's a feature not a bug. what is key is how we cooperatively come to consensus on those things which require it. so, can we please keep it civil and keep it simple? maybe we should all sing "yellow submarine" together to start the next meeting. :) what would rob do? what can we do simply here? randy [ with a shout out to nurani and izumi who quietly stood firm against an onslaught of real, not amateur, lawyers, who would like to rule us all ]
On 17.05.17 10:33 , Shane Kerr wrote:
All,
Another RIPE meeting has come and gone, but I don't remember any discussion about the missing RIPE Chair stuff - either the job description or appointment procedure.
Honestly I'm not sure what to do.
While there does not seem to be a lot of enthusiasm for this work, it seems like the kind of thing that should move forward before it is needed.
Perhaps we just need to wait for the accountability task force to remind us that we don't have these things? Or do we need to declare the RIPE Chair list a task force so that Daniel will insist that we have a deadline? ;)
Shane, there is no rush with this. [My insistence on an end-date in the other discussion is not intended to expedite that work either, but rather to avoid creating a working group in the disguise of a task force.] I know that Hans-Peter is working on it and we should let him take his time. Of course we can discuss here and inform his work, and we should! Personally I feel that the discussion so far has been going straight into detailed and overly prescriptive 'job descriptions' and 'procedures'. We should start from our tradition of simple pragmatism and only add more procedure when we are very sure that it is necessary. Besides being the RIPE style it would also be in honor of Rob's legacy to us. In this vain I have participated in a number of community discussions in Budapest and during the last few days. On that, admittedly non representative, basis let me offer this personal proposal as a basis for our discussion on this list: ------ ripe-xxx: The RIPE Chair Scope: This document describes the position of RIPE Chair Introduction Traditionally the main responsibility of the RIPE Chair is to ensure the proper functioning of RIPE. Traditionally the RIPE Chair has little formal power and relies on personal authority, credibility and a firm anchoring in the community. 1. Job Description Doing the sort of things the RIPE Chair usually does while maintaining an open and public channel of communication with the RIPE community. Other RIPE documents may describe specific tasks of the RIPE chair. 2. Continuity The RIPE chair may appoint and dismiss a vice chair. The RIPE chair may delegate some of their tasks to the vice chair. In the event that the RIPE chair is unable to perform their tasks for an extended period of time the vice chair may assume all duties of the RIPE chair after consulting the community. 3. Selection Usually the RIPE chair and the vice chair swap positions not earlier than during the fifth year and not later than during the seventh year of service of the RIPE chair. Usually the previous RIPE chair resigns from the vice chair position about one year later. -------- Rationale: 1. Being overly specific here is bad because it provides a huge target surface for disruptive discussions. Also it may be slightly inconsistent with other RIPE docments such as the "Working Group Chair Job Description and Procedures". Lets define these tasks only in one place. 2. I still hear quite some support for trusting the chair with appointing their successor. The vice-chair way will allow the community to form an opinion about the person as they perform some duties and before the trigger is pulled. 3. This addresses concerns about the chair clinging to his seat while keeping suitable flexibility. It also re-inforces continuity. Can we continue discussion with specific proposals to amend this language or are there still those who dismiss it out-of-hand? Specifically: if you have different ideas about the selection, propose language that includes a clear definition of who does what, specifically the electorate should you propose elections. Daniel
ripe-xxx: The RIPE Chair
Scope: This document describes the position of RIPE Chair
Introduction
Traditionally the main responsibility of the RIPE Chair is to ensure the proper functioning of RIPE. Traditionally the RIPE Chair has little formal power and relies on personal authority, credibility and a firm anchoring in the community.
s/authority/gravitas/ and an oxford comma :)
1. Job Description
Doing the sort of things the RIPE Chair usually does while maintaining an open and public channel of communication with the RIPE community. Other RIPE documents may describe specific tasks of the RIPE chair.
2. Continuity
The RIPE chair may appoint and dismiss a vice chair. The RIPE chair may delegate some of their tasks to the vice chair. In the event that the RIPE chair is unable to perform their tasks for an extended period of time the vice chair may assume all duties of the RIPE chair after consulting the community.
s/may appoint/should appoint/ as you need to have a vice share for section 3 s/assume all/assume some or all/
3. Selection
Usually the RIPE chair and the vice chair swap positions not earlier than during the fifth year and not later than during the seventh year of service of the RIPE chair. Usually the previous RIPE chair resigns from the vice chair position about one year later.
in general a solid start. simple enough that even i can understand it and accomplishes what is needed. thank you. randy
All amendments accepted. Thank you Randy. --- Sent from a handheld device. On 19. May 2017, at 13:44, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
ripe-xxx: The RIPE Chair
Scope: This document describes the position of RIPE Chair
Introduction
Traditionally the main responsibility of the RIPE Chair is to ensure the proper functioning of RIPE. Traditionally the RIPE Chair has little formal power and relies on personal authority, credibility and a firm anchoring in the community.
s/authority/gravitas/
and an oxford comma :)
1. Job Description
Doing the sort of things the RIPE Chair usually does while maintaining an open and public channel of communication with the RIPE community. Other RIPE documents may describe specific tasks of the RIPE chair.
2. Continuity
The RIPE chair may appoint and dismiss a vice chair. The RIPE chair may delegate some of their tasks to the vice chair. In the event that the RIPE chair is unable to perform their tasks for an extended period of time the vice chair may assume all duties of the RIPE chair after consulting the community.
s/may appoint/should appoint/ as you need to have a vice share for section 3
s/assume all/assume some or all/
3. Selection
Usually the RIPE chair and the vice chair swap positions not earlier than during the fifth year and not later than during the seventh year of service of the RIPE chair. Usually the previous RIPE chair resigns from the vice chair position about one year later.
in general a solid start. simple enough that even i can understand it and accomplishes what is needed.
thank you.
randy
Nick wrote: that email is probably one of the worst communications mechanisms ever devised I can see why he wrote it and I understand. But I disagree. ;-) Mailing lists in particular allow people to come back with (re)considered responses. Some of the more recent posts have been worthy of the community. Another nice thing about mailing lists is that you can go back and reread. This I have just done. Well more quickly scanned. And so, taking a very small step back, these are my thoughts: ** this informal group lacks a “chair” and so we have seemed more involved in “mob writing” - which is one down from “competitive writing”. We need somebody to bring the discussion back on course. I had thought of Hans-Petter. But there may be possible conflicts there. Now we seem to have Daniel and Randy? Scary! ;-) ** There is though clear tension between those who seek more detail, both in the process and in the responsibilities, and those who do not see such a need, indeed who see a certain danger there. I am on the side of less detail. But not to the extremes some have mentioned. I think we need text that everybody can and hopefully will read, understand and be able to refer to. Generally we, everybody, worldwide, seem to be getting into the habit of adding words. I was asked recently to comment, and very quickly, on a document of over 125 pages and with its own internal vocabulary. When you get to the point where even words do not mean what the dictionary says then I think there is a problem. ** I think we all agree we need three things. 1) Some way of identifying the “next RIPE chair". Given that that could be Hans-Petter brings constraints. So how do we get there? Hans-Petter could obviously announce that he was happy to carry on. And that could be good thing. Other possible candidates may though need encouragement. The final decision would obviously be taken during a plenary session? But by consensus or by vote? For sentimental reasons(!) I prefer consensus. But I am aware that that often leaves some people feeling outside the process. As I have mentioned before we already know the next chair. When Rob pointed to Hans-Petter nobody asked, “Hans who?” Any chair of RIPE has to have participated in a number of RIPE meetings. No I will not guess how many. But we are not looking outside the community. I expect that they may have been a WG chair. I would like to think that they will have had experience in actually running a network. Some solid technical grounding would appear essential. As is the ability to work in English? 2) Some definition of what the community expect of a RIPE chair. I like words like tradition, ethics and culture. I don’t know what the Internet will look like 5-10 years out. I guess we will still be talking about IPv6! Similarly I don’t know how RIPE will evolve. But I would hope the choice for RIPE chair will work with the community to get us there in a reasonable state. That will involve integrity on the part of the chair and trust on the part of the community. Against this I don’t like the idea of a detailed list of tasks, especially as we have not listed the basics. This is a full-time, part-time or spare-time job? What kind of support should a chair expect, financial and otherwise. 3) Some way for the community to get rid of a chair if they are failing. I don’t think this need be detailed. But we need a mechanism. If the chair loses the trust, respect and confidence of the community, as made clear during plenary, then they should simply step down? ** And we need a time-table. OK. We have all worked on projects and we all know deadlines can slip. But they still help! So the three deliverables agreed on the list before 75 and confirmed at a 75 plenary? The chair to be confirmed at a 76 plenary? Would a gentle reset with that time-table in mind be useful? Anyway welcome back all who left. You did not really leave us now did you! :-) Gordon PS My peach tree, after Budapest, is not doing well. Yes I have a peach tree on my balcony in central Paris. Last year there were several kilos of fruit. I am concerned but optimistic. As for so many things. ;-)
On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 11:06:29AM +0200, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
2. Continuity
The RIPE chair may appoint and dismiss a vice chair. The RIPE chair may delegate some of their tasks to the vice chair. In the event that the RIPE chair is unable to perform their tasks for an extended period of time the vice chair may assume all duties of the RIPE chair after consulting the community.
3. Selection
Usually the RIPE chair and the vice chair swap positions not earlier than during the fifth year and not later than during the seventh year of service of the RIPE chair. Usually the previous RIPE chair resigns from the vice chair position about one year later.
TL;DR I'm opposed to the 'chair selects chair'-method, additionally I'd prefer to see shorter terms. A leadership position which is instantiated to lead and serve a community, must be chosen by that very same community, _not_ by "the previous person". I fear the chair-selecting-chair methodology can weaken our posture against self-selection bias, and the methodology does very little against a chairperson operating with blinders on. Just because this method was used once before, does not make it a common practise nor is the single occurance a justification in itself to repeat the practise. As for the term duration, I think a 3 year term with, optionally followed by a one second 3 year term, will help introduce a healthy mix of leadership over the years. I think change is a feature, not a continuity issue. I'll argue that ability to adapt to change [in leadership] increases the community's stability rather then weaken it. The internet is a rapidly changing landscape, and I see no benefits to long appointments. An alternative, also simple: --------- Every 6th RIPE meeting, a call for nominations is issued. RIPE community members can email their nominations to the working group chair collective. The working group collective will use these nominations as guidance, and choose a new RIPE chair between the 6th and 7th meeting. After confirming whether the person is willing to accept the role, at the 7th RIPE meeting, the new RIPE chair is announced in a small plenary ceremony. A supermajority of the working group collective may kickstart this process at an earlier moment. The RIPE chair may not serve more than two consequtive terms. ---------- Kind regards, Job
On 19 May 2017, at 15:58, Job Snijders <job@ntt.net> wrote:
A leadership position which is instantiated to lead and serve a community, must be chosen by that very same community, _not_ by "the previous person". I fear the chair-selecting-chair methodology can weaken our posture against self-selection bias, and the methodology does very little against a chairperson operating with blinders on. Just because this method was used once before, does not make it a common practise nor is the single occurance a justification in itself to repeat the practise.
Job, your concerns are reasonable but perhaps over-stated. I would like to think we can trust the RIPE Chairman to make a wise choice about his or her successor. [It worked out just fine last time.] We certainly should have enough confidence in the RIPE Chairman to make that decision and get it right. If we can’t, how did someone with such poor judgement ever get to become RIPE Chairman? One possible way to deal with the concern over self-selection bias might be for the chairman’s choice of successor to somehow get endorsed by the community. Says Jim hand-waving. So if he/she makes a bad choice, the community says no and the RIPE Chairman tries again. At that point he/she will in all probability have a very clear indication from the community who should have been chosen the heir apparent. Getting the balance right here is hard. On one hand, it’s important that whoever serves as RIPE Chairman has deep roots in the community, enjoys broad support and is well respected. Which points towards an insider. On the other, choosing someone from a small gene pool could well lead to insularity or self-selection bias. Perhaps term limits could help so that the RIPE leadership gets refreshed every few years. Remember too that nothing is set in stone. I think we could try the "RIPE Chairman chooses their successor” (for some definition of that expression) and see how it works out. If it succeeds, we simply declare victory and all go back to our day jobs. If not, we try to devise some other mechanism to appoint/remove Our Dear Leader. BTW, “Chairman” is the correct term. It does not (should not) impose any limitation on the gender of whoever occupies that position. There’s at least one person on this list who is a Chairman and is unhappy to be called chair because they “weren’t a piece of furniture”.
Jim Reid wrote:
Job, your concerns are reasonable but perhaps over-stated. I would like to think we can trust the RIPE Chairman to make a wise choice about his or her successor. [It worked out just fine last time.] We certainly should have enough confidence in the RIPE Chairman to make that decision and get it right. If we can’t, how did someone with such poor judgement ever get to become RIPE Chairman?
I'm going to up-vote Job on this one, for the reasons stated in my previous emails to this list. There are many ways of handling leader selection, but nomination-by-previous-leader does not feature in the list of mechanisms which attracts the labels "bottom-up", "consensus-driven" or "community-oriented". If we truly intend to adhere to bottom-up principals in the ripe communtiy, we need to talk about a bottom-up selection process. Nick
Job, we are looking to select someone who keeps the community working well and working together. We are not selecting a "leader". We are not selecting someone in a corporate governance role. I do not think that "bottom-up requires elections" is true. We have been successful for 28 years without electing our chair and I argue that we have had a productive time *because* we have not had RIPE chair elections every three years. Elections do *not* have a high potential to select the kind of person we want. The ideal person is not the one who gets nominated and elected. They are also not the people who win a popularity contest nor a name-recognition game. Elections also have a high potential to be extremely divisive rather than unifying. A lot of energy may be necessary to re-unite the community after a fiercely contested election. Elections also tend to cost a lot of energy during the campaigns if they are contested. "Short, hard terms and term limits" are also not appropriate for the RIPE chair. Hard terms and term limits tend to force "renewal" at very bad moments in time. That is why I proposed text with a lot of flexibility and with a lot of "usually"s in there. We want someone with "gravitas" and continuity. We want flexibility to time the changing of the watch. What you propose is absolutely appropriate for corporate governance positions within groups of people like the RIPE NCC board. It is not appropriate to select the best person as RIPE chair. Maybe we can compromise on a system where "current chair proposes new vice chair to WG chairs who confirm or not" and "WG chairs provide formal feedback on performance of chair and vice chair at regular intervals"? I will be busy with family things during the next couple of weeks. I will try to read this list. But I may not be able to participate in the discussion much. But by all means keep it going! I also realise that we are missing a "design document" for fundamental ideas behind the RIPE & RIPE NCC system of self-governance. It is all passed on by word-of-mouth and experience. I am quite willing to help write something like this together with a couple of WG chairs; then have the community discuss it. Any takers? Daniel PS: For those who do not know me: I'd like to think that I am not just an inflexible traditionalist who wants the 'good old times' to never end. Look at my CV and judge for yourself. Even if you don't you should know that I have been "supporting the RIPE community since 1989", have been the one and only vice chair of RIPE to date and that I have ample experience with governance of both informal groups and serious corporations. I *do* lack experience in the governance of fully for-profit enterprises. https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/bios/bio-karrenberg-06aug14-en.pdf PPS: And yes I have fought alongside Nurani and Izumi in the IANA transition battles within ICANN. While I can work in such a system, I do not think it is remotely applicable to what RIPE is now and should be in the future.
Daniel, To clarify on language, can we all agree that we are talking about a selection method for the position of chair? And also agree to move away from the terms "election", "voting" and "leader" (the latter two terms which I ill-advisedly used in previous emails)? The usual reasons apply for avoiding these terms. The issue of selecting a new RIPE chair has happened exactly twice, once when RIPE was created, and once when Rob passed on the baton to Hans-Petter. On both occasions, an ad-hoc decision was made on the basis of expediency, and we've had the luxury that both situations ended up with an impeccable choice. This is not a defense of ad-hoc appointment, merely an observation that a sample size of two is not a good basis upon which to make a longer term decision about how to choose a chair. The problems with appointment are twofold: firstly, that there is no safety valve and secondly that - regardless of intent or idealism - it is the antithesis of bottom-up community process. The safety valve is the more serious of the two problems from a practical point of view. If the position of chair ends up vested in someone who abuses the position or is mediocre, then what happens? Your current suggestion means that they would be responsible for appointing both the vice chair and the next chair with no obligation to stand aside. This creates a dynastic hegemony, and history has repeatedly shown us that dynasties are a bad idea. I do not believe that it is feasible to suggest that a community like RIPE can seriously propose a selection method which institutes a top-down appointment mechanism. Apart from disenfranchising the RIPE community, it means that we do not practice what we preach. RIPE has endorsed the bottom-up approach since its beginning, and it would be difficult to defend a chair selection mechanism which wasn't bottom-up. We've seen many selection methods in the RIPE community over the years, ranging from choosing ASO representatives to WG chairs and plenty of things in between. We can also look further to other bottom up organisations, e.g. IETF, etc. So there is not a shortage of selection models to choose from. A 3 year term limit is too short, but a term limit needs to be put in place because it acts as an important safety valve. Nick Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
Job,
we are looking to select someone who keeps the community working well and working together. We are not selecting a "leader". We are not selecting someone in a corporate governance role.
I do not think that "bottom-up requires elections" is true. We have been successful for 28 years without electing our chair and I argue that we have had a productive time *because* we have not had RIPE chair elections every three years.
Elections do *not* have a high potential to select the kind of person we want. The ideal person is not the one who gets nominated and elected. They are also not the people who win a popularity contest nor a name-recognition game.
Elections also have a high potential to be extremely divisive rather than unifying. A lot of energy may be necessary to re-unite the community after a fiercely contested election.
Elections also tend to cost a lot of energy during the campaigns if they are contested.
"Short, hard terms and term limits" are also not appropriate for the RIPE chair. Hard terms and term limits tend to force "renewal" at very bad moments in time. That is why I proposed text with a lot of flexibility and with a lot of "usually"s in there. We want someone with "gravitas" and continuity. We want flexibility to time the changing of the watch.
What you propose is absolutely appropriate for corporate governance positions within groups of people like the RIPE NCC board. It is not appropriate to select the best person as RIPE chair.
Maybe we can compromise on a system where "current chair proposes new vice chair to WG chairs who confirm or not" and "WG chairs provide formal feedback on performance of chair and vice chair at regular intervals"?
I will be busy with family things during the next couple of weeks. I will try to read this list. But I may not be able to participate in the discussion much. But by all means keep it going!
I also realise that we are missing a "design document" for fundamental ideas behind the RIPE & RIPE NCC system of self-governance. It is all passed on by word-of-mouth and experience. I am quite willing to help write something like this together with a couple of WG chairs; then have the community discuss it. Any takers?
Daniel
PS: For those who do not know me: I'd like to think that I am not just an inflexible traditionalist who wants the 'good old times' to never end. Look at my CV and judge for yourself. Even if you don't you should know that I have been "supporting the RIPE community since 1989", have been the one and only vice chair of RIPE to date and that I have ample experience with governance of both informal groups and serious corporations. I *do* lack experience in the governance of fully for-profit enterprises. https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/bios/bio-karrenberg-06aug14-en.pdf
PPS: And yes I have fought alongside Nurani and Izumi in the IANA transition battles within ICANN. While I can work in such a system, I do not think it is remotely applicable to what RIPE is now and should be in the future.
Nick, there are fundamental differences between our approaches. I assume that RIPE people mostly do the right thing. No pun intended. :-) In case one of us makes a mistake, others point it out, we correct it and we move along. This saves us a lot of energy because we do not need to invent and maintain(!) a lot of process. It also gives us a lot of flexibility. How likely is it really that we would end up with a RIPE chair whkeeps doing things that the community does not like? Do you really think that we would not get rid of a RIPE chair who keeps doing wrong things in our proven ad-hoc fashion? The chair has very little 'powers' to keep going against the community really. I also believe that what you call 'dynastic mrhod of selection' is totally compatible with a bottom-up process. First of all it is not dynastic because family ties are not involved, but that is just me nit picking. More fundamentally it is as valid as any method as long as the community supports the outcome. That is why I ptopose to have the new chair prove themselves as a vice chair. Again no formal approval process. I trust that a vice chsir who fails to ger support fron the community will do the right thing and step down. We should reslly strive to avoid creating more process than absolutely necessary. That is what has made RIPE such a pleasant and successful place. What we do in RIPE really does not need a lot of process. The NCC handles the money and the contracts. Daniel
I assume that RIPE people mostly do the right thing. No pun intended. :-) In case one of us makes a mistake, others point it out, we correct it and we move along. This saves us a lot of energy because we do not need to invent and maintain(!) a lot of process.
We should reslly strive to avoid creating more process than absolutely necessary. That is what has made RIPE such a pleasant and successful place. What we do in RIPE really does not need a lot of process.
we don’t have a policy on that. think long and hard before volunteering to become the person who causes us to need one. -- stev knowles randy
On 24 May 2017, at 05:28, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> wrote:
We should reslly strive to avoid creating more process than absolutely necessary. That is what has made RIPE such a pleasant and successful place. What we do in RIPE really does not need a lot of process.
Well said Daniel. I hope RIPE will continue to function with the absolute minimum of process and "rules".
Daniel - On 22.05.2017 22:58, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
[...]
I also realise that we are missing a "design document" for fundamental ideas behind the RIPE & RIPE NCC system of self-governance. It is all passed on by word-of-mouth and experience. I am quite willing to help write something like this together with a couple of WG chairs; then have the community discuss it. Any takers?
isn't this in a pretty close vicinity to what the Accountability TF is tasked with and is working on? Best, -C.
Not in my mind. The charter of the accountability task force reads to me as a 'find holes' mission. We have narrowly avoided the charter to slso say 'and plug them for us'. The charter also excludes looking at the RIPE NCC, which is an essential part of the success story because it allows RIPE itself to stay simple and informal. I am not saying that the NCC needs changing! Whst I think is missing is a description of the underlying principles, how they came about and how they made RIPE work so well. This is a related but different thing. It certsinly is something that clould be *extremely helpful* for the task force. dfk --- Sent from a handheld device.
On 24. May 2017, at 01:54, Carsten Schiefner <ripe-wgs.cs@schiefner.de> wrote:
Daniel -
On 22.05.2017 22:58, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: [...]
I also realise that we are missing a "design document" for fundamental ideas behind the RIPE & RIPE NCC system of self-governance. It is all passed on by word-of-mouth and experience. I am quite willing to help write something like this together with a couple of WG chairs; then have the community discuss it. Any takers?
isn't this in a pretty close vicinity to what the Accountability TF is tasked with and is working on?
Best,
-C.
Hi Daniel, breaking it down the way you did here: On 24.05.2017 05:34, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
Not in my mind. The charter of the accountability task force reads to me as a 'find holes' mission. We have narrowly avoided the charter to slso say 'and plug them for us'.
The charter also excludes looking at the RIPE NCC, which is an essential part of the success story because it allows RIPE itself to stay simple and informal. I am not saying that the NCC needs changing!
Whst I think is missing is a description of the underlying principles, how they came about and how they made RIPE work so well.
This is a related but different thing. It certsinly is something that clould be *extremely helpful* for the task force.
makes quite some sense to me as well. :-) Best, -C.
On 24/05/2017 04:34, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
Not in my mind. The charter of the accountability task force reads to me as a 'find holes' mission. We have narrowly avoided the charter to slso say 'and plug them for us'.
I don't think anyone has yet established that there are any holes that need filling. I suggest the first job of the taskforce is to articulate a proposition for what we consider are the "fundamental ideas behind the RIPE & RIPE NCC system of self-governance", as you put it. Then it can analyse what we have, and see if there are any discrepancies[*] between what those principles call for and what actually exists. This thread has given voice to a strong suspicion that there are no such gaps. If that is found to be accurate, then the remaining job of the taskforce will lie in communicating how the two match (for example, for the benefit of newcomers). If discrepancies between principles and practice are found, there are actually two possibilities: it may be that there is a gap that needs to be plugged, but it may instead indicate that our idea of what our fundamental principles are is inaccurate, and should be changed to match what we have. There are likely to be consequences (pros and cons) to either approach, so the taskforce should also set out for the community what are the likely consequences of either path. The taskforce can lay all this out for the community. Indeed, it is a good structure for performing this work precisely because it clearly has no authority to actually make any governing decision, much less impose any new processes or structures. Malcolm [*] By way of example of what I mean by "discrepancy", I perceive an inconsistency between your assertion that RIPE is fundamentally a bottom-up organisation and your proposal that the job of identifying community principles should be transferred from a taskforce that was open to participation by any community volunteers, and handed to the WG Chairs Collective for a top-down Voice of Authority. It may be that this discrepancy is resolved by saying that the taskforce is a more appropriate vehicle than the WG Chairs Collective for this type of work. Alternatively, it could be resolved by saying that RIPE self-governance is not really bottom-up, it is a self-perpetuating oligarchy, and that it's only the work of the Working Groups that is actually bottom-up. That's the kind of choice the community will need to make. It's not the job of the taskforce to make it for the community, only to present the options clearly so that the community understands what it is asserting.
The charter also excludes looking at the RIPE NCC, which is an essential part of the success story because it allows RIPE itself to stay simple and informal. I am not saying that the NCC needs changing!
Whst I think is missing is a description of the underlying principles, how they came about and how they made RIPE work so well.
This is a related but different thing. It certsinly is something that clould be *extremely helpful* for the task force.
dfk
--- Sent from a handheld device.
On 24. May 2017, at 01:54, Carsten Schiefner <ripe-wgs.cs@schiefner.de> wrote:
Daniel -
On 22.05.2017 22:58, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: [...]
I also realise that we are missing a "design document" for fundamental ideas behind the RIPE & RIPE NCC system of self-governance. It is all passed on by word-of-mouth and experience. I am quite willing to help write something like this together with a couple of WG chairs; then have the community discuss it. Any takers?
isn't this in a pretty close vicinity to what the Accountability TF is tasked with and is working on?
Best,
-C.
-- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/ 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
On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 4:58 PM, Job Snijders <job@ntt.net> wrote: <snip>
A leadership position which is instantiated to lead and serve a community, must be chosen by that very same community, _not_ by "the previous person". I fear the chair-selecting-chair methodology can weaken our posture against self-selection bias, and the methodology does very little against a chairperson operating with blinders on. Just because this method was used once before, does not make it a common practise nor is the single occurance a justification in itself to repeat the practise.
I think our problem might lay here hidden in two terms "lead" and "selected by" or "appointed by" I would suggest we replace the world "lead" with "guide". I have not yet seen either Rob or Hans Petter really us, we, the community pick our path, Rob/Hans Petter then help us/guide us in that direction. Another think a chair does is to give the outside world, the more formal world, an obvious place of contact. Regarding "selected" or "appointed", if we go down the path of "selected" we need alot more formalized procedures on how we can select someone. If we pick the "appointed" path it is enough that current RIPE Chair appoint someone as vice-chair, then _request_ the community to confirm that selections. Without that confirmations from the community it's hard to say that the vice-chair represent us. Isn't that simply enough? -- Roger Jorgensen rogerj@gmail.com / roger@jorgensen.no
missed an important word here On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 9:02 AM, Roger Jørgensen <rogerj@gmail.com> wrote: <snip>
I have not yet seen either Rob or Hans Petter really us, we, the ..... ".... Rob or Hans Petter really LEAD us..."
-- Roger Jorgensen rogerj@gmail.com / roger@jorgensen.no
participants (23)
-
Brian Nisbet -
Carlos Friacas -
Carsten Schiefner -
Daniel Karrenberg -
Filiz Yilmaz -
Gert Doering -
Gordon Lennox -
Jelte Jansen -
Jim Reid -
Job Snijders -
João Damas -
Lynn Blokzijl -
Malcolm Hutty -
Mirjam Kuehne -
Nick Hilliard -
Nigel Titley -
Nurani Nimpuno -
Piotr Strzyzewski -
Randy Bush -
Rob Evans -
Roger Jørgensen -
Sander Steffann -
Shane Kerr