Re: [ripe-list] ripe-list Digest, Vol 139, Issue 10
Hi guys Maybe a middle ground is worth considering. Where a working group has 2 or 3 co-chairs, perhaps allow RIPE NCC staff to take chair positions but not allow them to be in a majority. That allows a WG to benefit from the deep understanding of RIPE NCC staff, who work full time around many of the issues under consideration, without the RIPE NCC being 'seen' as in control. Whilst this is an interesting theoretical discussion, let's have an injection of the unspoken reality. There are many issues here that few will speak of. Having had one foot in both these camps, let me speak up on behalf of those with no voice. We all live in multiple hierarchies of power and control. Corporate life is just one of them. The RIPE NCC is a corporate body. It has a board, a management hierarchy and a hierarchy of workers. Whilst the RIPE NCC acts as an executive body or secretariat for the loosely defined and very public RIPE community, everyone associated with the RIPE NCC is still subject to the norms of corporate life. WE, as part of the community, are discussing how staff members 'can and should' (words taken from the document) be able to interact with this community. It is notable that no staff member has joined this discussion. Whilst WE are discussing how staff members 'can and should' be able to get heavily involved in policy discussions, maybe staff don't feel able to even join the discussion on the discussion. Regardless of the connection between the RIPE NCC and the RIPE community, as a corporate body the RIPE NCC has corporate policy, strategy, rules, discipline and internal ways of working. All of this covers how the RIPE NCC, as a company and secretariat with staff, interacts with the, often difficult to identify, RIPE community. It says in this draft document "In addition to that, the RIPE NCC may have more detailed internal guidelines for staff participation in the RIPE community and other community work." Unless those guidelines are published in full, as a RIPE NCC procedural document, whatever this draft document says is meaningless as it can all be overruled by these internal guidelines. If the RIPE community is going to define how the RIPE NCC should (be able to) interact with the RIPE community then there must also be a condition that no RIPE NCC staff member should be put under any pressure internally to either be or not be a co-chair of a particular working group. We must also offer 'protected rights' of staff to comment freely in a discussion on a working group mailing list if we want them to act as full members of the community. Obviously they must not disclose any confidential internal information. But they should be allowed to comment freely, expressing their own opinion, in a professional manner, EVEN if that goes against the RIPE NCC company policy. No staff member should be internally disciplined if their public opinion contradicts that of perhaps a more senior member of staff. It is good to have this open discussion, but you must also accept that many staff members will never comment on any mailing list discussion because of the fear of an internal backlash. I was a staff member and I know what can happen if you say the wrong thing in public. I once said something in a presentation at a RIPE Meeting. It had been approved by my manager but left another manager very angry. The immediate and very public consequence of that literally left me in tears at that meeting. Some people who saw me may remember it. The follow up internally was not pleasant either. (Just for clarity, it was a long time ago and all concerned parties have since left the RIPE NCC.) So if we want staff to have this level of involvement with the community then we MUST have a clear buy-in from the senior management team at the RIPE NCC and from the OR (staff workers association). There must be safeguards put in place to protect staff from freedom of speech issues, even if what they say goes against company policy or the plans of any manager. It is not enough to have Hans Petter as a co-author of this document. Anything agreed here can be overruled by the "more detailed internal guidelines for staff participation". In any corporate body, staff know that to keep your job means to keep your mouth shut, never say anything contentious and don't rock the boat. As a retired professional I argue passionately for or against issues on any WG mailing list. I say what I believe to be right, professionally and without any malice. No staff member at the RIPE NCC is ever going to say many of the things I say. Even with safeguards it is not worth the risk. This is an interesting discussion, but don't have too much expectation on the outcome. People are human, they have feelings and fears. Now I would also like to extend this discussion in another direction. Whistle blowing. I am NOT for one moment suggesting there are currently any whistles to blow at the RIPE NCC. But who knows what the future holds. If a member of staff is aware of something wrong, whatever it may be, and they feel strongly that the community should be aware of it, can we have a way for them to anonymously raise the issue? Plenty of food for thought... cheers denis
From: Nigel Titley <nigel@titley.com> To: Joe Abley <jabley@strandkip.nl>, ripe-list@ripe.net Cc: Bcc: Date: Thu, 11 May 2023 15:01:40 +0100 Subject: Re: [ripe-list] ripe-list Digest, Vol 139, Issue 9
On 11/05/2023 14:51, Joe Abley wrote:
Following on from my previous comment, I think it would be better to focus on avoiding *actual* conflicts of interest. I think worrying about appearances is what happens when there is a lack of understanding of the substance and, in the case of managing a useful and productive collaboration between the community and NCC-as-secretariat,the substance seems important.
If the goal is to avoid a need for understanding, then it seems like the natural solution is that NCC staff should never be allowed to participate as members of the community at all. I don't think that is necessary or desirable.
If we had a perfect world then I'd agree with you. However I've been in this business long enough to know that if there is a faintest chance of a possible thought of a conflict then someone will complain.
However, I'm not part of this community any longer in any real sense, and if people think this isn't important then go for it.
Nigel
Excellent write-up and line of thought. I would love to see NCC staff and (senior) management respond to this discussion as well as indeed we are discussing "how staff members 'can and should' be able to get heavily involved". +1 on the finding middle ground On Sat, May 13, 2023 at 11:03 AM denis walker <ripedenis@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi guys
Maybe a middle ground is worth considering. Where a working group has 2 or 3 co-chairs, perhaps allow RIPE NCC staff to take chair positions but not allow them to be in a majority. That allows a WG to benefit from the deep understanding of RIPE NCC staff, who work full time around many of the issues under consideration, without the RIPE NCC being 'seen' as in control.
Whilst this is an interesting theoretical discussion, let's have an injection of the unspoken reality. There are many issues here that few will speak of. Having had one foot in both these camps, let me speak up on behalf of those with no voice. We all live in multiple hierarchies of power and control. Corporate life is just one of them. The RIPE NCC is a corporate body. It has a board, a management hierarchy and a hierarchy of workers. Whilst the RIPE NCC acts as an executive body or secretariat for the loosely defined and very public RIPE community, everyone associated with the RIPE NCC is still subject to the norms of corporate life. WE, as part of the community, are discussing how staff members 'can and should' (words taken from the document) be able to interact with this community. It is notable that no staff member has joined this discussion. Whilst WE are discussing how staff members 'can and should' be able to get heavily involved in policy discussions, maybe staff don't feel able to even join the discussion on the discussion. Regardless of the connection between the RIPE NCC and the RIPE community, as a corporate body the RIPE NCC has corporate policy, strategy, rules, discipline and internal ways of working. All of this covers how the RIPE NCC, as a company and secretariat with staff, interacts with the, often difficult to identify, RIPE community. It says in this draft document "In addition to that, the RIPE NCC may have more detailed internal guidelines for staff participation in the RIPE community and other community work." Unless those guidelines are published in full, as a RIPE NCC procedural document, whatever this draft document says is meaningless as it can all be overruled by these internal guidelines.
If the RIPE community is going to define how the RIPE NCC should (be able to) interact with the RIPE community then there must also be a condition that no RIPE NCC staff member should be put under any pressure internally to either be or not be a co-chair of a particular working group. We must also offer 'protected rights' of staff to comment freely in a discussion on a working group mailing list if we want them to act as full members of the community. Obviously they must not disclose any confidential internal information. But they should be allowed to comment freely, expressing their own opinion, in a professional manner, EVEN if that goes against the RIPE NCC company policy. No staff member should be internally disciplined if their public opinion contradicts that of perhaps a more senior member of staff. It is good to have this open discussion, but you must also accept that many staff members will never comment on any mailing list discussion because of the fear of an internal backlash. I was a staff member and I know what can happen if you say the wrong thing in public. I once said something in a presentation at a RIPE Meeting. It had been approved by my manager but left another manager very angry. The immediate and very public consequence of that literally left me in tears at that meeting. Some people who saw me may remember it. The follow up internally was not pleasant either. (Just for clarity, it was a long time ago and all concerned parties have since left the RIPE NCC.)
So if we want staff to have this level of involvement with the community then we MUST have a clear buy-in from the senior management team at the RIPE NCC and from the OR (staff workers association). There must be safeguards put in place to protect staff from freedom of speech issues, even if what they say goes against company policy or the plans of any manager. It is not enough to have Hans Petter as a co-author of this document. Anything agreed here can be overruled by the "more detailed internal guidelines for staff participation". In any corporate body, staff know that to keep your job means to keep your mouth shut, never say anything contentious and don't rock the boat. As a retired professional I argue passionately for or against issues on any WG mailing list. I say what I believe to be right, professionally and without any malice. No staff member at the RIPE NCC is ever going to say many of the things I say. Even with safeguards it is not worth the risk. This is an interesting discussion, but don't have too much expectation on the outcome. People are human, they have feelings and fears.
Now I would also like to extend this discussion in another direction. Whistle blowing. I am NOT for one moment suggesting there are currently any whistles to blow at the RIPE NCC. But who knows what the future holds. If a member of staff is aware of something wrong, whatever it may be, and they feel strongly that the community should be aware of it, can we have a way for them to anonymously raise the issue?
Plenty of food for thought...
cheers denis
From: Nigel Titley <nigel@titley.com> To: Joe Abley <jabley@strandkip.nl>, ripe-list@ripe.net Cc: Bcc: Date: Thu, 11 May 2023 15:01:40 +0100 Subject: Re: [ripe-list] ripe-list Digest, Vol 139, Issue 9
On 11/05/2023 14:51, Joe Abley wrote:
Following on from my previous comment, I think it would be better to focus on avoiding *actual* conflicts of interest. I think worrying about appearances is what happens when there is a lack of understanding of the substance and, in the case of managing a useful and productive collaboration between the community and NCC-as-secretariat,the substance seems important.
If the goal is to avoid a need for understanding, then it seems like the natural solution is that NCC staff should never be allowed to participate as members of the community at all. I don't think that is necessary or desirable.
If we had a perfect world then I'd agree with you. However I've been in this business long enough to know that if there is a faintest chance of a possible thought of a conflict then someone will complain.
However, I'm not part of this community any longer in any real sense, and if people think this isn't important then go for it.
Nigel
--
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ripe-list
Denis, Melchior, colleagues, On 12 May 2023, at 19:03, denis walker wrote:
So if we want staff to have this level of involvement with the community then we MUST have a clear buy-in from the senior management team at the RIPE NCC and from the OR (staff workers association).
You're quite right that, without the buy-in you suggest, documenting "how RIPE NCC staff can participate in RIPE" could turn out to be no more than "interesting theoretical discussion." To make progress, we need a first step, and then (as the saying goes), "the other foot has to fall." We still need that first step, which what is attempted in this document. On 15 May 2023, at 21:51, Melchior Aelmans wrote (in reply to Denis):
I would love to see NCC staff and (senior) management respond to this discussion as well as indeed we are discussing "how staff members 'can and should' be able to get heavily involved".
I think, if I were in their position, I should prefer to respond only after a clear set of "community principles" had emerged. This document is a proposal for such a set of principles. If some essential principle is missing, or if there is an error in any of the principles proposed, now would be a good moment to point that out. Best regards, Niall
Dear all, The document shared by Mirjam is primarily written from the community perspective: The community welcomes staff to participate in the community There is, however, a limitation: * …RIPE NCC staff need to act sensibly to avoid the perception of unduly giving guidance to themselves. We have internal written policies such as the RIPE NCC code of conduct, https://www.ripe.net/about-us/staff/ripe-ncc-code-of-conduct.pdf which covers Representing the RIPE NCC Externally (text included below for reference) and, to some extent, unwritten guidelines regulating extracurricular engagement, such as participation in the PDP and community work. Updates to internal policies will be discussed with staff and take Works Council advice and approval where necessary into account. In general, we do not discuss internal policies with the community, but we base them on the principles set by the community. The employees have a formal say through their elected representatives on The Ondernemingsraad (OR), also known as the Works Council. See https://www.ripe.net/about-us/staff/structure/works-council for more information. A clause in all employment contracts requires approval for extracurricular positions. This may apply to Working Group Chair duties in the RIPE Community or other communities. We have a workflow in the personnel system for this. The current practice has been very restrictive for RIPE WG positions, especially for Address Policy and Services. In principle, the RIPE NCC is happy to provide “secretarial support” to the WG Chairs, but we should not take on chairing working groups unless there is an exceptional need. I am aware that there have been several exceptions throughout history for various reasons. The current wording allows for that, but the Executive Board and management may see the need to be more restrictive than the community principles in certain cases. RIPE NCC staff play a special role in community activities: on the one hand, they are important experts with excellent knowledge; on the other hand, they are ultimately the ones receiving guidance from RIPE. Therefore, RIPE NCC staff need to act sensibly in order to avoid the perception of unduly giving guidance to themselves. I am looking forward to a fruitful discussion on how the RIPE NCC can participate in and support the community, Sincerely, Hans Petter Holen Managing Director RIPE NCC RIPE NCC Code of Conduct: 9. Representing the RIPE NCC Externally The Code of Conduct is applicable for both work and work-related events and meetings. RIPE has a separate Code of Conduct in place that applies to all participants of its meetings and online interactions. All staff are expected to adhere to the RIPE Code of Conduct when they represent the RIPE NCC externally. Many of us travel for work. This includes conferences, education courses, member lunches, RIPE Meetings, RIPE NCC Regional Meetings, being a member of a working group, etc. What you say as a representative of the RIPE NCC can have a lasting impact – for better or worse. Be mindful of what you say and who you are saying it to. This counts for verbal communication as well as via email and social media. When you respond or reply on a public mailing list or forum, be aware that readers of your comment see you as a RIPE NCC representative. A personal opinion can easily be seen as the opinion of the RIPE NCC. The community is well-connected and word travels fast. We expect each employee to always act and communicate in the best interest of the RIPE NCC’s mission and vision and in line with the RIPE NCC’s values. Internal discussions and differences of opinion will be discussed internally and any differences displayed externally should be done so following internal coordination and always with the intention to bring good perspectives to the external world. To the outside world, staff members of the RIPE NCC have many voices bringing their own expertise and perspective, but these voices should not conflict in any way with overall RIPE NCC strategy or policy, and these voices should never be seen to argue unnecessarily in a public way. Discuss differences with your colleagues internally rather than externally. If people are unsure of what can be communicated externally, check with your People Lead.
participants (4)
-
denis walker -
Hans Petter Holen -
Melchior Aelmans -
Niall O'Reilly