Draft Document: The Relationship between RIPE and the RIPE NCC (for your review)
Dear colleagues, Over the last few years, we worked on the recommendations by the RIPE NomCom 2020 [1]. One recommendation was still open: "to document community consensus on the relationship between RIPE and the RIPE NCC". We are excited to share a first draft document with you that describes this relationship as it has evolved from 1992 until the present time. Since Daniel Karrenberg has been involved in both the RIPE community and the RIPE NCC from the beginning, we asked Daniel to author such a document. This is now ready for review: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-documents/other-documents/draft-... Please let us know if you have any comments, questions, suggestions before 25 November 2024. We're also happy to hear feedback during the upcoming RIPE 89 meeting. Kind regards, Mirjam Kühne and Niall O'Reilly RIPE Chair Team [1] RIPE Nominating Committee 2020 https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-762/
Hi Mirjam! On Oct 24, 2024, at 14:32, Mirjam Kuehne <mir@zu-hause.nl> wrote:
Over the last few years, we worked on the recommendations by the RIPE NomCom 2020 [1]. One recommendation was still open: "to document community consensus on the relationship between RIPE and the RIPE NCC".
We are excited to share a first draft document with you that describes this relationship as it has evolved from 1992 until the present time.
I served on the 2020 NomCom. I speak only for myself, though. One of the things I struggled with during the NomCom process was over a specific issue that you are very familiar with, which is the independence of the RIPE chair, as the leader of the RIPE community, from the RIPE NCC. In 2020 the NomCom arrived at the decision that we are quite familiar and happy with, which was to appoint a person who was (at the time of selection) both an employee of the RIPE NCC and a well-known and well-qualified member of the RIPE community, so perhaps it's reasonable to say that the question was dodged because there was a highly-agreeable solution at hand that did not require that question to receive much attention. However, I remember hearing feedback from people not on the NomCom that they would prefer more separation between the RIPE NCC and the RIPE community when such decisions are made in the future. To speak directly, the general concern (not directed at our current esteemed leader!) is whether it is reasonable to ask someone to represent the RIPE community in difficult discussions with the RIPE NCC, perhaps in some future area of conflict, if that person is functionally indistinguishable from being a RIPE NCC employee. I do not see anything in this document that mentions this particular issue. I appreciate this document is answering a more general question, but since the origins of the request lie in precisely that area of uncertainty, it seems pertinent. The role of RIPE chair is, after all, an important part of the RIPE community. The fact that the document does not speak to it seems like an omission. Joe
Hello Joe, Thank you for taking the time to read the draft and for your contribution to the previous NomCom. I considered mentioning that the current RIPE chair is both a long time participant in RIPE and a former employee of the RIPE NCC as an example for a number of points made in the draft. In the end I deleted that because I considered the text too long already. If the community wants this mentioned I am happy to add it. As far as the general subject of RIPE NCC staff participation in RIPE is concerned there is a short paragraph in the text which references ripe-810, the document that describes community consensus about that subject. I consider this enough for the scope of this draft. In case I am missing your point please suggest some draft text that should go in this draft. I am happy with rough text. We can refine it together. The scope of the draft is to describe the status-quo that exists. If your suggestion is to add more specific rules, they should go in a revision of ripe-810 or of ripe-787 which describes the selection process for RIPE Chairs. Best Daniel --- Sent from a handheld device.
Hi Daniel, On Oct 24, 2024, at 18:23, Daniel Karrenberg <dfk@karrenberg.net> wrote:
I considered mentioning that the current RIPE chair is both a long time participant in RIPE and a former employee of the RIPE NCC as an example for a number of points made in the draft. In the end I deleted that because I considered the text too long already. If the community wants this mentioned I am happy to add it.
As far as the general subject of RIPE NCC staff participation in RIPE is concerned there is a short paragraph in the text which references ripe-810, the document that describes community consensus about that subject.
I consider this enough for the scope of this draft. In case I am missing your point please suggest some draft text that should go in this draft. I am happy with rough text. We can refine it together.
I think what you say makes sense. I still have some niggling doubts, but I don't think they are because your document doesn't address the nomcom's request; I think it's rather because the nomcom's request didn't address the difficulties I had around the independence question at the time. So I agree that this particular document is probably not the ideal place to try and provide clarity.
The scope of the draft is to describe the status-quo that exists. If your suggestion is to add more specific rules, they should go in a revision of ripe-810 or of ripe-787 which describes the selection process for RIPE Chairs.
I do think it would be a kindness to future nomcoms to explore whether we could get community consensus over the independence question, and I agree an update to ripe-787 would be a sensible way to approach that. Joe
On 24 Oct 2024, at 17:23, Daniel Karrenberg via ripe-list wrote:
The scope of the draft is to describe the status-quo that exists. If your suggestion is to add more specific rules, they should go in a revision of ripe-810 or of ripe-787 which describes the selection process for RIPE Chairs.
... and taking account of ripe-797 (Principles for Remuneration of the RIPE Chair and Vice-Chair), which addresses another aspect of the relationship. /Niall
On 25/10/24 18:38, Niall O'Reilly wrote:
On 24 Oct 2024, at 17:23, Daniel Karrenberg via ripe-list wrote:
The scope of the draft is to describe the status-quo that exists. If your suggestion is to add more specific rules, they should go in a revision of ripe-810 or of ripe-787 which describes the selection process for RIPE Chairs.
... and taking account of ripe-797 (Principles for Remuneration of the RIPE Chair and Vice-Chair), which addresses another aspect of the relationship.
/Niall
Maybe we should mention ripe-797 in the draft too? Or is that too much detail? I got vibes that some WGs feel they need to be mentioned as examples too. Do people prefer more text or is this draft too wordy already? Finally: I am considering to remove the history appendix and maybe publish the material as a separate document later. Something like: "RIPE & RIPE NCC 1989-2024- Some personal recollections". That would enable me to tell a more personal and possibly subjective story which it would still serve as background material for this document. Thoughts? Daniel
Hi, all Joe wrote:
However, I remember hearing feedback from people not on the NomCom that they would prefer more separation between the RIPE NCC and the RIPE community when such decisions are made in the future. To speak directly, the general concern (not directed at our current esteemed leader!) is whether it is reasonable to ask someone to represent the RIPE community in difficult discussions with the RIPE NCC, perhaps in some future area of conflict, if that person is functionally indistinguishable from being a RIPE NCC employee.
I provided such feedback at the time. Mirjam has been a fabulous chair, and while we celebrate this, we should not forget to address the potential for future conflicts as you have described, Joe.
I do not see anything in this document that mentions this particular issue.
There are a few signals which this document does contain which do speak to this issue: Draft: The Relationship between RIPE and the RIPE NCC, says:
RIPE proposed the RIPE NCC as an activity under the guidance of RIPE but funded and governed separately
The draft describes a full separation of governance.
The RIPE NCC is a neutral and independent home for activities that benefit the whole community
The RIPE NCC's independence and neutrality within RIPE must mean that it neither participates in RIPE governance (maintaining independence) nor expresses opinions on such matters of its independence (upholding neutrality). While we hold all involved individuals in high regard, cementing this level of independence must be achieved by amending ripe-788. Specifically, someone other than the Chair of the NCC Executive Board should appoint the NomCom chair. Additionally, including NCC employees in the "Not Qualified" section of the volunteer description in the same document would reinforce this stance. As a result, the draft Mirjam circulated also requires revision, particularly the section on "RIPE Chair Selection," which currently states that "RIPE relies on the RIPE NCC board" for certain functions. This reliance seems inconsistent with the earlier emphasis on the separation between the two organisations. I have some general feedback on the draft as well. Daniel, thank you for leading the effort in preparing this document. I wonder if Section 4, which refers to "RIPE" and "RIPE NCC" as organisations, employs the right terminology. Since RIPE is a community rather than an organisation—and is distinct from the NCC organisation—the wording might need reconsideration. I imagine you've already grappled with this phrasing during your preparation. In Section 2, there's a double negative: "RIPE has recognised that some of its activities cannot not be performed well just by volunteers." To convey the intended meaning more clearly, it should read "cannot be performed well just by volunteers." Regarding the "Risks" section, while it acknowledges potential friction between RIPE and the RIPE NCC, it lacks details on mechanisms to mitigate or resolve such conflicts. Elaborating on established dispute resolution processes or communication protocols would strengthen the document and reassure readers of the organisations' ability to handle disagreements effectively. Happy weekend, all Andy Davidson
On 25. 10. 24 13:13, Andy Davidson wrote:
Specifically, someone other than the Chair of the NCC Executive Board should appoint the NomCom chair.
Who? All other options are a) clash of the interests or b) complicated and complex. Cheers, Jan
Hi, Jan Zorz wrote:
On 25. 10. 24 13:13, Andy Davidson wrote:
Specifically, someone other than the Chair of the NCC Executive Board should appoint the NomCom chair. Who?
Daniel’s draft covers this – “RIPE works by consensus” (section 2). A consensus of the wg-chairs seems RIPEy. Andy
Andy, If I remember correctly we considered the WG Chairs collective for this at the time and the consensus was not to overload it with more formal tasks. The push back came from some of the WG chairs themselves during preliminary discussions about the selection process. Of course this might have changed almost a decade later and consensus may be different today. To be crystal clear: I personally do not plan to take an active role in developing RIPE processes any more. More than three decades of this work is not healthy, neither for RIPE nor for myself. I will follow he community with great interest and gladly provide advice. The current draft is just describing the status quo that exists for the purposes mentioned in the intro. Changes tom the status quo are out of scope. Driving change is for others now. Daniel ----- sent from a handheld device
On 26 Oct 2024, at 12:34, Andy Davidson <andy@nosignal.org> wrote:
Hi,
Jan Zorz wrote:
On 25. 10. 24 13:13, Andy Davidson wrote:
Specifically, someone other than the Chair of the NCC Executive Board should appoint the NomCom chair. Who?
Daniel’s draft covers this – “RIPE works by consensus” (section 2). A consensus of the wg-chairs seems RIPEy.
Andy ----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/ripe-list.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
participants (7)
-
Andy Davidson -
Daniel karrenberg -
Daniel Karrenberg
-
Jan Zorz - Go6 -
Joe Abley -
Mirjam Kuehne -
Niall O'Reilly