By the deadline these 36 people have volunteered for the RIPE Nominations Committee: 20 Alexander Isavnin Internet Protection Society 13 Andreas Wkittkemper Verizon Deutschland GmbH 24 Antonio Prado SBTAP 10 Arnold Nipper DE-CIX Management GmbH 21 Benno Overeinder NLnet Labs 23 Brian Nisbet HEAnet 31 Cosmin Octavian Lupu Visma 19 Dmitry Burkov RU-CENTER 25 Dmitry Kohmanyuk Hostmaster.UA 27 Frederic Jaeckel GitHub, Inc. 07 Geoff Huston APNIC 08 Gert Döring SpaceNet AG 09 Hervé Clément Orange SA 14 Jim Reid RTFM llp 15 Joe Abley Public Interest Registry 36 João luis silva damas APNIC 28 Keith Mitchell DNS-OARC 16 Marcus Stoegbauer Megaport / ECIX 29 Markus de Brün BSI 04 Martin Winter Network Device Education Foundation (Net 26 Massimo Candela NTT 17 Mircea Ulinic DigitalOcean 32 Nathalie Trenaman RIPE NCC 33 Nurani Nimpuno Asteroid International 11 Ondřej Caletka CESNET 18 Pascal Gloor Quickline AG 12 Paul Hoogsteder Meanie 06 Randy Bush Arrcus Inc & IIJ & RGnet 03 Robert Evans Jisc 02 Sander Steffann Global NOG Alliance 35 Shane Kerr NS1 34 Simone Ferlin Ericsson 05 Stefan Wahl Megaport / ECIX 30 Tina Morris Amazon 01 Wolfgang Tremmel DE-CIX Management GmbH 22 Wolfgang Zenker punkt.de GmbH This is about 10% of our estimate for the number of eligible persons. In the name of the RIPE community I thank all these people for volunteering. For 35 of them we have verified that they have attended at least three out of the five most recent RIPE meetings. The ten voting members of the NomCom will be selected by the method specified in RFC3797 based on the numbers in the list above and on the following lotto results of Wednesday, December 11th: Deutscher Lottoblock [https://www.lotto.de/lotto-6aus49/lottozahlen] Swisslotto [https://www.swisslos.ch/de/swisslotto/information/gewinnzahlen/gewinnzahlen-...] Österreichische Lotterien [https://www.win2day.at/lotterie/lotto] In the event this method will select a person whose eligibility is not yet confirmed or a person who does not re-confirm their willingness to serve, the next person in the sequence will be selected and so forth. Daniel Karrenberg Chair of the RIPE Nominations Committee PS: In an earlier statement I said that I would use the Luxembourg Lotto. During a trial run today however it became obvious that they are very pragmatic and use the numbers of the German lotto. ;-) In order to have ample entropy I chose to use the Austrian lotto instead.
Good morning, The lotteries have produced randomness and I have run the RFC3797 algorithm. Thus the following 10 volunteers are selected to serve as voting members of the NomCom. They will choose the next RIPE chair and vice chair. |Selection # | ID |Name | Affiliation | |:----------:|----|-------------------------|----------------------------------------| | 01 | 19 |Dmitry Burkov |RU-CENTER | | 02 | 15 |Joe Abley |Public Interest Registry | | 03 | 25 |Dmitry Kohmanyuk |Hostmaster.UA | | 04 | 08 |Gert Döring |SpaceNet AG | | 05 | 11 |Ondřej Caletka |CESNET | | 06 | 30 |Tina Morris |Amazon | | 07 | 02 |Sander Steffann |Global NOG Alliance | | 08 | 21 |Benno Overeinder |NLnet Labs | | 09 | 03 |Robert Evans |Jisc | | 10 | 10 |Arnold Nipper |DE-CIX Management GmbH | This is a fine selection of very capable people who are well rooted in our community. It is about as good as I personally hoped for. Of course it could have been more diverse if more people had offered to serve… The following 6 volunteers are the ‘reserve’ and will be called upon in this order if necessary: |Selection # | ID |Name | Affiliation | |:----------:|----|-------------------------|----------------------------------------| | 11 | 05 |Stefan Wahl |Megaport / ECIX | | 12 | 16 |Marcus Stoegbauer |Megaport / ECIX | | 13 | 17 |Mircea Ulinic |DigitalOcean | | 14 | 36 |João luis silva damas |APNIC | | 15 | 32 |Nathalie Trenaman |RIPE NCC | | 16 | 09 |Hervé Clément |Orange SA | All 16 volunteers meet the selection criteria; thanks to Alexandra Vos of the meeting secretariat for double checking this. Also no more than two of these people have the same affiliation. Thus all 16 meet the criteria for serving on the NomCom. According to ripe-728 there is a 7 day challenge period starting now. After this period the selections become definite. In the name of the community I thank all 36 volunteers for offering to serve. The NomCom will have its first meeting in the second half of January. As a chair I plan to conduct this process as openly as possible and to proactively inform the community about what is going on. This may cause a little traffic on this list ;-). Let us support the NomCom during this process by providing as much well considered input as we can. We have received a total of 1 (one) nominations so far. Apparently the call for nominations came too soon after the call for NomCom volunteers and went unnoticed by many. Thus I intend to extend the deadline for this well into next year. Stay tuned for that announcement. Daniel Karrenberg Chair of the RIPE Nominations Committee ————— #### Selection Process Details: The list of volunteers as published on 2 December was: | ID |Name | Affiliation | |----|-------------------------|----------------------------------------| | 20 |Alexander Isavnin |Internet Protection Society | | 13 |Andreas Wkittkemper |Verizon Deutschland GmbH | | 24 |Antonio Prado |SBTAP | | 10 |Arnold Nipper |DE-CIX Management GmbH | | 21 |Benno Overeinder |NLnet Labs | | 23 |Brian Nisbet |HEAnet | | 31 |Cosmin Octavian Lupu |Visma | | 19 |Dmitry Burkov |RU-CENTER | | 25 |Dmitry Kohmanyuk |Hostmaster.UA | | 27 |Frederic Jaeckel |GitHub, Inc. | | 07 |Geoff Huston |APNIC | | 08 |Gert Döring |SpaceNet AG | | 09 |Hervé Clément |Orange SA | | 14 |Jim Reid |RTFM llp | | 15 |Joe Abley |Public Interest Registry | | 36 |João luis silva damas |APNIC | | 28 |Keith Mitchell |DNS-OARC | | 16 |Marcus Stoegbauer |Megaport / ECIX | | 29 |Markus de Brün |BSI | | 04 |Martin Winter |Network Device Education Foundation (Net| | 26 |Massimo Candela |NTT | | 17 |Mircea Ulinic |DigitalOcean | | 32 |Nathalie Trenaman |RIPE NCC | | 33 |Nurani Nimpuno |Asteroid International | | 11 |Ondřej Caletka |CESNET | | 18 |Pascal Gloor |Quickline AG | | 12 |Paul Hoogsteder |Meanie | | 06 |Randy Bush |Arrcus Inc & IIJ & RGnet | | 03 |Robert Evans |Jisc | | 02 |Sander Steffann |Global NOG Alliance | | 35 |Shane Kerr |NS1 | | 34 |Simone Ferlin |Ericsson | | 05 |Stefan Wahl |Megaport / ECIX | | 30 |Tina Morris |Amazon | | 01 |Wolfgang Tremmel |DE-CIX Management GmbH | | 22 |Wolfgang Zenker |punkt.de GmbH | — The results of the Lottos selected on 2 December were: | Lottery | Result 11 Dec 2019 | |------------------------------|-------------------:| | Deutscher Lottoblock | 14 25 27 32 36 45 | | Swisslotto | 23 26 28 30 31 41 | | Österreichische Lotterien | 2 8 18 26 35 43 | — The C code from the RFC gives this result: Key is: 14.25.27.32.36.45./23.26.28.30.31.41./2.8.18.26.35.43./ index hex value of MD5 div selected 1 A26C7AFE602EF878C72EC35B96F853A6 36 -> 19 <- 2 FF17DA4DAE818CE816C43B553F81C46F 35 -> 15 <- 3 4F936C5B7BD1C566078C6972A294C156 34 -> 25 <- 4 84A248BE75A235185B727345ADC3D6FE 33 -> 8 <- 5 E416B1F2A856565E5BBEFF76E246AE29 32 -> 11 <- 6 2D61CA2687A442A407031C04C2C9B2BE 31 -> 30 <- 7 CFEB51E5A2792130617061FB91C78961 30 -> 2 <- 8 103650FFE0E910C201E05C6247F03BEC 29 -> 21 <- 9 7AF7F979C5B0179A774A38BF53A22805 28 -> 3 <- 10 57B98931E6EBFEE55A3050806DBD2726 27 -> 10 <- 11 1F7BA95F0A15FBE8D8094358F727DE42 26 -> 5 <- 12 1F3B2A7E8AA56404F59D9A5924117481 25 -> 16 <- 13 E39BDFE8488D89C5AD9F778CA0C28608 24 -> 17 <- 14 1BFF2B394C5638262A8997DE5182D1CE 23 -> 36 <- 15 7132F07452FDEB57A5FFEBF7059DDB12 22 -> 32 <- 16 4A3449B267199D12064DE76CBC365743 21 -> 9 <- — An alternative perl implementation yields this equivalent result: index hex value of MD5 div selected 1 a26c7afe602ef878c72ec35b96f853a6 36 -> 19 <- 2 ff17da4dae818ce816c43b553f81c46f 35 -> 15 <- 3 4f936c5b7bd1c566078c6972a294c156 34 -> 25 <- 4 84a248be75a235185b727345adc3d6fe 33 -> 8 <- 5 e416b1f2a856565e5bbeff76e246ae29 32 -> 11 <- 6 2d61ca2687a442a407031c04c2c9b2be 31 -> 30 <- 7 cfeb51e5a2792130617061fb91c78961 30 -> 2 <- 8 103650ffe0e910c201e05c6247f03bec 29 -> 21 <- 9 7af7f979c5b0179a774a38bf53a22805 28 -> 3 <- 10 57b98931e6ebfee55a3050806dbd2726 27 -> 10 <- 11 1f7ba95f0a15fbe8d8094358f727de42 26 -> 5 <- 12 1f3b2a7e8aa56404f59d9a5924117481 25 -> 16 <- 13 e39bdfe8488d89c5ad9f778ca0c28608 24 -> 17 <- 14 1bff2b394c5638262a8997de5182d1ce 23 -> 36 <- 15 7132f07452fdeb57a5ffebf7059ddb12 22 -> 32 <- 16 4a3449b267199d12064de76cbc365743 21 -> 9 <-
Hello Daniel,
Of course it could have been more diverse if more people had offered to serve…
I find this a rather strange comment. This sounds like a way of placing the responsibility for diversity in the NomCom, onto people from underrepresented groups in our community. This is a sentiment that I have seen before regarding the NomCom, from different people. Instead of placing that responsibility on those underrepresented groups, I wonder what work was done in advance to identify possible biases in the qualification process, what barriers may reduce diversity in the NomCom, and how these biases and barriers were accounted for in the policy? I’m aware it’s a bit late to change the policy. However, it is similarly a bit late to raise concerns about diversity only after the policy and call for volunteers is announced, and then the call does not result in a diverse group. Especially if the limited diversity is then explained as “if only more people had offered to serve”. Sasha
On 12 Dec 2019, at 11:28, Sasha Romijn wrote:
Hello Daniel,
Of course it could have been more diverse if more people had offered to serve…
I find this a rather strange comment. This sounds like a way of placing the responsibility for diversity in the NomCom, onto people from underrepresented groups in our community. This is a sentiment that I have seen before regarding the NomCom, from different people.
Instead of placing that responsibility on those underrepresented groups, I wonder what work was done in advance to identify possible biases in the qualification process, what barriers may reduce diversity in the NomCom, and how these biases and barriers were accounted for in the policy?
I’m aware it’s a bit late to change the policy. However, it is similarly a bit late to raise concerns about diversity only after the policy and call for volunteers is announced, and then the call does not result in a diverse group. Especially if the limited diversity is then explained as “if only more people had offered to serve”.
Sasha
Sasha, it is a very straightforward comment. My best estimate of the number of eligible people is 380. As NomCom chair I made announcements, talked at the community plenary and I canvassed. We made a lot of noise with the help of the excellent NCC comms people. Quite a number of other people helped with all that too. My hope was for roughly 25% of those eligible volunteering. In the end less than 10% did. I had hoped for more volunteers and for a more diverse set of volunteers; hence my comment. It was certainly not my intention to blame anyone for anything, nor was it my intention to raise concerns. As you know the discussion about the process took several years. I am happy it concluded eventually. A number of people worked quite hard to make that happen. This process was as open, transparent and inclusive as possible. The issue of NomCom eligibility was discussed several times. Yet no-one made workable suggestions in that particular area when the proposal was on the table for several months. In the end my perception of the sentiment was “This is good enough for the first round. We’ll be pragmatic if we hit snags and we will improve it for the next round.” After this first run is complete, the NomCom will produce a report listing issues and hopefully presenting alternatives to address those. Working within the current procedure, if you wish and the NomCom agrees, you could become an advisor to the NomCom, both for the purpose of bringing more diversity and for helping with that final report. How’s that? Daniel
On 12 Dec 2019, at 12:21, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
Working within the current procedure, if you wish and the NomCom agrees, you could become an advisor to the NomCom, both for the purpose of bringing more diversity and for helping with that final report. How’s that?
To be sure: as laid out in ripe-728 advisors are full members of the NomCom, participate, contribute and vote on all matters except on the selection of candidates. From my observations of IETF NomComs I can say that advisors can have considerable influence on the work of the NomCom and the outcomes of that work. The NomCom will have liaisons from the WG-chairs collective, the RIPE program committee and the RIPE NCC board. Ana Wilson has agreed to be an advisor filling the role of ‘previous chair’. If anyone in the RIPE community has suggestions for additional advisors that would help the NomCom please let us hear them. Daniel
On 13 Dec 2019, at 11:42, Daniel Karrenberg <chair@ripe-nomcom.org> wrote:
On 12 Dec 2019, at 12:21, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: Working within the current procedure, if you wish and the NomCom agrees, you could become an advisor to the NomCom, both for the purpose of bringing more diversity and for helping with that final report. How’s that? To be sure: as laid out in ripe-728 advisors are full members of the NomCom, participate, contribute and vote on all matters except on the selection of candidates. From my observations of IETF NomComs I can say that advisors can have considerable influence on the work of the NomCom and the outcomes of that work. The NomCom will have liaisons from the WG-chairs collective, the RIPE program committee and the RIPE NCC board. Ana Wilson has agreed to be an advisor filling the role of ‘previous chair’. If anyone in the RIPE community has suggestions for additional advisors that would help the NomCom please let us hear them.
I would be happy to be an advisor if there is support from the community. Regards Denesh
while i would like to be an advisor, the nomcom seems not to need more old white males. so i will pass. but i strongly encourage folk from underepresented populations to volunteer. randy
I could hardly object to Randy being one of them. Old fart or not, we need people who know the community, what their skin computer age or fondness of cat movies is hardly matters. Paul.
On 13 Dec 2019, at 18:44, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
while i would like to be an advisor, the nomcom seems not to need more old white males. so i will pass. but i strongly encourage folk from underepresented populations to volunteer.
randy
Hi Daniel, For the IETF nomcom, there are only 2 Advisors: * Past chair * IETF Tools Team Advisor The Tools Team Advisor is mainly there to provide support for the process (candidate feedback, encrypted committee deliberations and so on). The rest are Liaisons: IAB Liaison IESG Liaison ISOC Board Liaison IETF LLC Liaison IETF Trust Liaison I am not sure I understand how Advisors are selected in the RIPE context: "An advisor is responsible for such duties as specified by the invitation that resulted in the appointment." Can you clarify what this means in practice. Ole Ole J. Jacobsen Editor and Publisher The Internet Protocol Journal Office: +1 415-550-9433 Cell: +1 415-370-4628 E-mail: olejacobsen@me.com Skype: organdemo On Fri, 13 Dec 2019, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
On 12 Dec 2019, at 12:21, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
Working within the current procedure, if you wish and the NomCom agrees, you could become an advisor to the NomCom, both for the purpose of bringing more diversity and for helping with that final report. How’s that?
To be sure: as laid out in ripe-728 advisors are full members of the NomCom, participate, contribute and vote on all matters except on the selection of candidates.
From my observations of IETF NomComs I can say that advisors can have considerable influence on the work of the NomCom and the outcomes of that work.
The NomCom will have liaisons from the WG-chairs collective, the RIPE program committee and the RIPE NCC board. Ana Wilson has agreed to be an advisor filling the role of ‘previous chair’.
If anyone in the RIPE community has suggestions for additional advisors that would help the NomCom please let us hear them.
Daniel
Hi Ole, Good to hear from you again! The RIPE NomCom process is described in ’The RIPE Chair Selection Process’ (ripe-727) and ‘The RIPE Nominating Committee’ (ripe-728). ripe-728 is a close copy of RFC7437 which describes the IETF NomCom process. Both RFC7437 and ripe-728 have this to say: “Any committee member may propose the addition of an advisor to participate in some or all of the deliberations of the committee. The addition must be approved by the committee according to its established voting mechanism. Advisors participate as individuals.” This is what I was referring to in my message. Personally I see this provision as an opportunity for the NoCom to closely involve people who make a commitment to help the NomCom to function better. In particular the NomCom could decide to use this mechanism to improve its diversity. Of course I do not propose to invite everyone who claims to ‘represent’ a subset of the community that they claim is ‘excluded’. The NomCom is not a parliament! I just intended to point out that this mechanism already exists and is available to the NomCom. As NomCom chair I intend to point this out at the first meeting referring to this and other pertinent discussions. I hope this clarifies things. Daniel On 13 Dec 2019, at 18:59, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
Hi Daniel,
For the IETF nomcom, there are only 2 Advisors:
* Past chair * IETF Tools Team Advisor
The Tools Team Advisor is mainly there to provide support for the process (candidate feedback, encrypted committee deliberations and so on).
The rest are Liaisons:
IAB Liaison IESG Liaison ISOC Board Liaison IETF LLC Liaison IETF Trust Liaison
I am not sure I understand how Advisors are selected in the RIPE context: "An advisor is responsible for such duties as specified by the invitation that resulted in the appointment."
Can you clarify what this means in practice.
Ole
Daniel, I think Sasha's point is important. You have a valid argument that few applied despite your outreach and effort. However, is it possible within the current procedures to find out the reasons they didn't apply? Did they get the communications? Do they not have enough resources and time to take part? Do they know and understand the importance of the role? And so on. If we can find out the reasons they didn't apply and if the issues they mention can be solved with some preparation (not impractical solutions though!), then you can prepare for the next Nomcom with additional insights. Just a thought. This is my first email to this list, I have no idea who has posting rights, so apologies if I am jumping in undeservedly. Farzaneh On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 6:21 AM Daniel Karrenberg <chair@ripe-nomcom.org> wrote:
On 12 Dec 2019, at 11:28, Sasha Romijn wrote:
Hello Daniel,
Of course it could have been more diverse if more people had offered to serve…
I find this a rather strange comment. This sounds like a way of placing the responsibility for diversity in the NomCom, onto people from underrepresented groups in our community. This is a sentiment that I have seen before regarding the NomCom, from different people.
Instead of placing that responsibility on those underrepresented groups, I wonder what work was done in advance to identify possible biases in the qualification process, what barriers may reduce diversity in the NomCom, and how these biases and barriers were accounted for in the policy?
I’m aware it’s a bit late to change the policy. However, it is similarly a bit late to raise concerns about diversity only after the policy and call for volunteers is announced, and then the call does not result in a diverse group. Especially if the limited diversity is then explained as “if only more people had offered to serve”.
Sasha
Sasha,
it is a very straightforward comment. My best estimate of the number of eligible people is 380. As NomCom chair I made announcements, talked at the community plenary and I canvassed. We made a lot of noise with the help of the excellent NCC comms people. Quite a number of other people helped with all that too. My hope was for roughly 25% of those eligible volunteering. In the end less than 10% did. I had hoped for more volunteers and for a more diverse set of volunteers; hence my comment. It was certainly not my intention to blame anyone for anything, nor was it my intention to raise concerns.
As you know the discussion about the process took several years. I am happy it concluded eventually. A number of people worked quite hard to make that happen. This process was as open, transparent and inclusive as possible. The issue of NomCom eligibility was discussed several times. Yet no-one made workable suggestions in that particular area when the proposal was on the table for several months. In the end my perception of the sentiment was “This is good enough for the first round. We’ll be pragmatic if we hit snags and we will improve it for the next round.” After this first run is complete, the NomCom will produce a report listing issues and hopefully presenting alternatives to address those.
Working within the current procedure, if you wish and the NomCom agrees, you could become an advisor to the NomCom, both for the purpose of bringing more diversity and for helping with that final report. How’s that?
Daniel
farzaneh:
I think Sasha's point is important. You have a valid argument that few applied despite your outreach and effort. However, is it possible within the current procedures to find out the reasons they didn't apply? Did they get the communications? Do they not have enough resources and time to take part? Do they know and understand the importance of the role? And so on. If we can find out the reasons they didn't apply and if the issues they mention can be solved with some preparation (not impractical solutions though!), then you can prepare for the next Nomcom with additional insights.
as you and sasha seem to be focused on this, it would be cool if you did the research and reported back. i think daniel is busy enough right now. having the results of your research, when we do the post-process review after all this is done, would be extremely helpful to guide us next time. randy
Randy Of course. I’d wait for Daniel to let me know if he thinks it’s a good idea and if RIPE thinks it is feasible to do it in the future. Then we can come up with a plan. I however do not appreciate your interjection in this manner. It is not very constructive. I hope we can have constructive conversations in the future. On Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 11:53 AM Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
farzaneh:
I think Sasha's point is important. You have a valid argument that few applied despite your outreach and effort. However, is it possible within the current procedures to find out the reasons they didn't apply? Did they get the communications? Do they not have enough resources and time to take part? Do they know and understand the importance of the role? And so on. If we can find out the reasons they didn't apply and if the issues they mention can be solved with some preparation (not impractical solutions though!), then you can prepare for the next Nomcom with additional insights.
as you and sasha seem to be focused on this, it would be cool if you did the research and reported back.
i think daniel is busy enough right now. having the results of your research, when we do the post-process review after all this is done, would be extremely helpful to guide us next time.
randy
-- Farzaneh
Farzaneh, Welcome! Thank you for your thoughtful contribution. It is more than appropriate and I appreciate it. With your permission I will include your thoughts in the draft of the NomCom final report. The main purposes of that report are to identify areas for improvement, to make suggestions for changes and to serve as a guide for the next NomCom. As Randy suggested it would be excellent if serious research was done on the questions you list. I intend to either perform or instigate some research in this direction when I find the time and before the final report is completed. Of course it would be better to do it sooner as people’s memories tend to fade. Unfortunately I have no time to spare for this right now. So, personally, I welcome initiatives in this direction. Best Daniel PS: I have the impression that you misunderstood Randy’s directness as lack of politeness or bad form. I interpreted it as a constructive suggestion. We all have to be aware that such different interpretations can happen in a community as divers as RIPE, however hard we try to avoid them. Daniel On 14 Dec 2019, at 16:58, farzaneh badii wrote:
Daniel,
I think Sasha's point is important. You have a valid argument that few applied despite your outreach and effort. However, is it possible within the current procedures to find out the reasons they didn't apply? Did they get the communications? Do they not have enough resources and time to take part? Do they know and understand the importance of the role? And so on. If we can find out the reasons they didn't apply and if the issues they mention can be solved with some preparation (not impractical solutions though!), then you can prepare for the next Nomcom with additional insights.
Just a thought. This is my first email to this list, I have no idea who has posting rights, so apologies if I am jumping in undeservedly.
Farzaneh
Daniel I am glad you found my brief suggestion useful and thanks so much for including it in the report. I understand the time constraints and am at your disposal if you want to do this kind of research in the future. It doesn't have to be too elaborate, we can use a brief survey or a couple of interviews as the first step. Farzaneh On Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 3:21 PM Daniel Karrenberg <chair@ripe-nomcom.org> wrote:
Farzaneh,
Welcome! Thank you for your thoughtful contribution. It is more than appropriate and I appreciate it. With your permission I will include your thoughts in the draft of the NomCom final report. The main purposes of that report are to identify areas for improvement, to make suggestions for changes and to serve as a guide for the next NomCom.
As Randy suggested it would be excellent if serious research was done on the questions you list. I intend to either perform or instigate some research in this direction when I find the time and before the final report is completed. Of course it would be better to do it sooner as people’s memories tend to fade. Unfortunately I have no time to spare for this right now. So, personally, I welcome initiatives in this direction.
Best
Daniel
PS: I have the impression that you misunderstood Randy’s directness as lack of politeness or bad form. I interpreted it as a constructive suggestion. We all have to be aware that such different interpretations can happen in a community as divers as RIPE, however hard we try to avoid them.
Daniel
On 14 Dec 2019, at 16:58, farzaneh badii wrote:
Daniel,
I think Sasha's point is important. You have a valid argument that few applied despite your outreach and effort. However, is it possible within the current procedures to find out the reasons they didn't apply? Did they get the communications? Do they not have enough resources and time to take part? Do they know and understand the importance of the role? And so on. If we can find out the reasons they didn't apply and if the issues they mention can be solved with some preparation (not impractical solutions though!), then you can prepare for the next Nomcom with additional insights.
Just a thought. This is my first email to this list, I have no idea who has posting rights, so apologies if I am jumping in undeservedly.
Farzaneh
participants (7)
-
Daniel Karrenberg -
Denesh Bhabuta -
farzaneh badii -
Ole Jacobsen -
Paul Hoogsteder -
Randy Bush -
Sasha Romijn