RIPE Working Group Chair Collective Meeting Summary
Dear colleagues, The RIPE Working Group Chairs met in January to review the appeal and to exchange experiences with regard to the RIPE Policy Development Process. We also discussed the meeting plan for the upcoming RIPE 82 Meeting. You can find a summary from the meeting here: https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/wg-chairs/working-group-chair-colle... Kind regards, Mirjam Kühne RIPE Chair
Hi Mirjam, all, First of all, I want to thank for this extensive work. I've read the link that you provided and the documents linked to it, and I agree with most of the points, while I still think there are missing points or issues. I'm going to discuss here only the most important ones, I may be missing others at this point, so I can come back later on if needed. 1) I agree that it doesn't make sense the text about the ownership of the PDP. However, I don't think (point 3 in your link) that there is any doubt about the way the PDP needs to be updated. In all the RIRs, the PDP is updated by the PDP, and we have been there already a couple of years ago (https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2018-04 resulted in the RIPE-710)! Now, if we want to make it more explicit, I've no issue with that. 2) Not always we have "problem" (point 4, 1st p.) and thus it means a problem statement can be acceptable for some folks and not others, so clearly this must not be in the hands of a few (like WG chairs), but part of the consensus. For example, sometimes (2018-04 is a good example of that), we are adopting policy changes, or even PDP changes, because there is a need to improve the clarify of the text and avoid different interpretations, which can be a very bad thing. 3) Following in point 4, I agree that consensus definition must support anonymous the same way we have anonymous participants in the list. I "personally" don't like that, but I need to accept that if I accept the concept of consensus and I see a valid justification for that: someone could have a view that is against his/her employer and if he/she uses real name, it may get problems in the job. I really prefer anonymous than false identities, or use as puppets other community members. Now, what I disagree is in what degree the decision of the WG chairs to continue the discussion. This is a much bigger problem. 4) I participate in all the RIRs PDPs, and the low number of participants is quite usual. In fact, it may seem that ARIN and RIPE have more active participation, but if you look at it as % of membership, we are actually "worst" than other RIRs! In other RIRs there have been studies and work to try to resolve that: all failed, and I don't think anything will work. The problem is that even resource holders don't see the PDP as part of their job. I think is that way, because whatever we do in the PDP may affect your resources or the way you "use them". I've been insulted in other RIRs even to say that is part of their job and it must be an obligation to participate, but I really don't care, I prefer to express honestly my views. A few weeks ago, I was already considering to send a new policy proposal to make some other changes in the PDP. I will start working on that, in case others will like to participate. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 9/2/21 11:58, "ripe-list en nombre de Mirjam Kuehne" <ripe-list-bounces@ripe.net en nombre de mir@zu-hause.nl> escribió: Dear colleagues, The RIPE Working Group Chairs met in January to review the appeal and to exchange experiences with regard to the RIPE Policy Development Process. We also discussed the meeting plan for the upcoming RIPE 82 Meeting. You can find a summary from the meeting here: https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/wg-chairs/working-group-chair-colle... Kind regards, Mirjam Kühne RIPE Chair ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
hi, On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 12:33:18PM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list wrote:
2) Not always we have "problem" (point 4, 1st p.) and thus it means a problem statement can be acceptable for some folks and not others, so clearly this must not be in the hands of a few (like WG chairs), but part of the consensus. For example, sometimes (2018-04 is a good example of that), we are adopting policy changes, or even PDP changes, because there is a need to improve the clarify of the text and avoid different interpretations, which can be a very bad thing.
"there is a need to improve" is a very clear problem statement :-) A problem *statement* does not have to be "LIRs are starving!", but it defines whatever it is that is to be addressed by a policy proposal. For policy proposals to progress in a meaningful way, there needs to be some sort of common understanding on the "problem statement" aka "what is it that we are going to improve here, and why?" *before* a full-blown new policy text falls from the sky. If this is missing, usually people do not react in the most open and welcoming way to "hey, I have a new wall of text here!" ambush proposals. (A problem statement does not have to be "we're going to improve the world" class - it can be just "I, speaking for my LIR, have seen problems with <this>, and I think it can be improved by doing <that>" - which is a very clear statement on *why* things are proposed. Then the community can start discussing the *how* - but "why?" needs to come first) Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Then, no doubts, never any of my proposals (including the one sent to the list a couple of days ago), has lacked a clear problem statement. The problem is another one: different folks may agree/disagree that it is something that we need to resolve or not (independently of how we can resolve that). Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 9/2/21 13:17, "ripe-list en nombre de Gert Doering" <ripe-list-bounces@ripe.net en nombre de gert@space.net> escribió: hi, On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 12:33:18PM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list wrote: > 2) Not always we have "problem" (point 4, 1st p.) and thus it means a problem statement can be acceptable for some folks and not others, so clearly this must not be in the hands of a few (like WG chairs), but part of the consensus. For example, sometimes (2018-04 is a good example of that), we are adopting policy changes, or even PDP changes, because there is a need to improve the clarify of the text and avoid different interpretations, which can be a very bad thing. "there is a need to improve" is a very clear problem statement :-) A problem *statement* does not have to be "LIRs are starving!", but it defines whatever it is that is to be addressed by a policy proposal. For policy proposals to progress in a meaningful way, there needs to be some sort of common understanding on the "problem statement" aka "what is it that we are going to improve here, and why?" *before* a full-blown new policy text falls from the sky. If this is missing, usually people do not react in the most open and welcoming way to "hey, I have a new wall of text here!" ambush proposals. (A problem statement does not have to be "we're going to improve the world" class - it can be just "I, speaking for my LIR, have seen problems with <this>, and I think it can be improved by doing <that>" - which is a very clear statement on *why* things are proposed. Then the community can start discussing the *how* - but "why?" needs to come first) Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
Hi, On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 01:31:02PM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list wrote:
Then, no doubts, never any of my proposals (including the one sent to the list a couple of days ago), has lacked a clear problem statement.
Well, you missed the part about "common understanding about the problem statement *before* hitting people with a wall of text". And no, as you can see from the reactions, what might be clear to you is far from clear to the receivers. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Common understanding is completely subjective. In this specific case there is a very clear problem (recognized by the documents already sent today by Mirjam), which is no formal definition who must self-recuse. Not to mention the others that I've mention. Even if only me see those problems (which again is not the case, according to WGCC summary), still there is a chance that with the discussion of the proposal others support it and we can find a point where objections are invalid. This is what consensus mean. We all know that "objectors" usually "speak up more and louder". Most of the people that agree, tend to stay silent. It is very unfortunate, but is the way it is. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 9/2/21 13:39, "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net> escribió: Hi, On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 01:31:02PM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list wrote: > Then, no doubts, never any of my proposals (including the one sent to the list a couple of days ago), has lacked a clear problem statement. Well, you missed the part about "common understanding about the problem statement *before* hitting people with a wall of text". And no, as you can see from the reactions, what might be clear to you is far from clear to the receivers. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
On 9 Feb 2021, at 12:49, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list <ripe-list@ripe.net> wrote:
Even if only me see those problems (which again is not the case, according to WGCC summary), still there is a chance that with the discussion of the proposal others support it and we can find a point where objections are invalid. This is what consensus mean.
It does not mean that. You are wrong. Please read RFC7282. I quote: "Consensus is when everyone is sufficiently satisfied with the chosen solution, such that they no longer have specific objections to it.” Everyone is not sufficiently satisfied with your proposal(s) - QED - so by definition there cannot be a consensus for them.
Hi Jim, I know very well RFC7282 and quoting a piece of it doesn't help. Only a complete read and understand of the document is useful. Otherwise, I can refute your quote with another quote from the same document, that shows that objections can still allow consensus: " If the chair of a working group determines that a technical issue brought forward by an objector has been truly considered by the working group, and the working group has made an informed decision that the objection has been answered or is not enough of a technical problem to prevent moving forward, the chair can declare that there is rough consensus to go forward, the objection notwithstanding." We can endless discuss about that, I don't think it will help. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 9/2/21 14:23, "ripe-list en nombre de Jim Reid" <ripe-list-bounces@ripe.net en nombre de jim@rfc1035.com> escribió: > On 9 Feb 2021, at 12:49, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list <ripe-list@ripe.net> wrote: > > Even if only me see those problems (which again is not the case, according to WGCC summary), still there is a chance that with the discussion of the proposal others support it and we can find a point where objections are invalid. This is what consensus mean. It does not mean that. You are wrong. Please read RFC7282. I quote: "Consensus is when everyone is sufficiently satisfied with the chosen solution, such that they no longer have specific objections to it.” Everyone is not sufficiently satisfied with your proposal(s) - QED - so by definition there cannot be a consensus for them. ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
On 9 Feb 2021, at 11:33, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list <ripe-list@ripe.net> wrote:
it may seem that ARIN and RIPE have more active participation, but if you look at it as % of membership, we are actually "worst" than other RIRs!
RIPE != RIPE NCC. RIPE doesn’t have a membership. And it’s not an RIR. You’re right that participation levels are low but there is no practical way to improve that. If there was, it would have been done. We can’t force people to post to the lists or come to meetings or submit policy proposals. This is a much, much wider problem in society. Countries can’t even get enough of their citizens to vote in elections.
A few weeks ago, I was already considering to send a new policy proposal to make some other changes in the PDP. I will start working on that
I think you need to pause for a few months and then think *very* carefully before proceeding Jordi. You also need to pay attention to the advice that you appear to have previously ignored: for instance the need for clear problem statements. You seem to think you have given a clear problem statement(s). Nobody else does.
I'm perfectly aware of the difference between RIPE NCC and RIPE. Unfortunately, is not that well understood in the other RIRs. I think even if my wording was not perfect, it was clear to be understood: Members of RIPE NCC (and other RIRs), are also part of the RIPE community. To be part of this community you just need to participate. Decision of the RIPE community, in terms of policy making, affect the members of RIPE NCC and all the other RIRs. However, most of the RIPE NCC (and other RIRs members) do not consider "part of their job" to participate in the policy making process of RIPE (and other RIRs). And to respond on the other part: Believe me, trying to coerce or harass me will not work, on the other way around. El 9/2/21 14:30, "ripe-list en nombre de Jim Reid" <ripe-list-bounces@ripe.net en nombre de jim@rfc1035.com> escribió: > On 9 Feb 2021, at 11:33, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list <ripe-list@ripe.net> wrote: > > it may seem that ARIN and RIPE have more active participation, but if you look at it as % of membership, we are actually "worst" than other RIRs! RIPE != RIPE NCC. RIPE doesn’t have a membership. And it’s not an RIR. You’re right that participation levels are low but there is no practical way to improve that. If there was, it would have been done. We can’t force people to post to the lists or come to meetings or submit policy proposals. This is a much, much wider problem in society. Countries can’t even get enough of their citizens to vote in elections. > A few weeks ago, I was already considering to send a new policy proposal to make some other changes in the PDP. I will start working on that I think you need to pause for a few months and then think *very* carefully before proceeding Jordi. You also need to pay attention to the advice that you appear to have previously ignored: for instance the need for clear problem statements. You seem to think you have given a clear problem statement(s). Nobody else does. ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
Dear JORDI, You have exceeded the commonly accepted daily quota of 5 emails. Please allow others time to contemplate all the messages posted to the list, and formulate responses. You are not the only subscriber. There is no need for you to fill up this mailing list as fast as you can write messages. Please come back at a later time. Kind regards, Job
Hi Job, I missed that in the PDP, where it is mention? I'm not sure if I should take it as a joke or one more subtle coercion/harassment. All are free to reply to any community list as much as we believe. You may disagree, but for me it is much easier to follow topics and discussions in short emails instead of waiting the full day and responding in a single email to all the emails of the day. Does that make sense? Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 9/2/21 15:11, "ripe-list en nombre de Job Snijders" <ripe-list-bounces@ripe.net en nombre de job@instituut.net> escribió: Dear JORDI, You have exceeded the commonly accepted daily quota of 5 emails. Please allow others time to contemplate all the messages posted to the list, and formulate responses. You are not the only subscriber. There is no need for you to fill up this mailing list as fast as you can write messages. Please come back at a later time. Kind regards, Job ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
Jordi, On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 03:15:33PM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list wrote:
I missed that in the PDP, where it is mention?
you might then have missed the "common sense" part mentioned earlier in this threead. I respectfully suggest you do follow the advice and reduce the cadence of your contributions. -Peter
Common sense and education for me is to respond to emails that are sent to me. I've the same right to respond to what I consider is a coercion, that you to insist on that. Who is first the egg or the chicken? So, if you don't want more emails on this subject, just stop it, then I will not need to reply Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 9/2/21 15:21, "ripe-list en nombre de Peter Koch" <ripe-list-bounces@ripe.net en nombre de pk@DENIC.DE> escribió: Jordi, On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 03:15:33PM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list wrote: > I missed that in the PDP, where it is mention? you might then have missed the "common sense" part mentioned earlier in this threead. I respectfully suggest you do follow the advice and reduce the cadence of your contributions. -Peter ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
Jordi, you are free to write us much emails as you want at the risk of being ignored. If you keep pushing you’ll definitely end up on my blocklist as you also keep changing subjects, so it’s not enough to Mute one thread. This is not coercion nor harassment, just stating the fact that I am as free to not receive your emails as you are free to send any amount of emails to the list. Ondřej On Tue 9. 2. 2021 at 15:15 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list < ripe-list@ripe.net> wrote:
Hi Job,
I missed that in the PDP, where it is mention?
I'm not sure if I should take it as a joke or one more subtle coercion/harassment.
All are free to reply to any community list as much as we believe. You may disagree, but for me it is much easier to follow topics and discussions in short emails instead of waiting the full day and responding in a single email to all the emails of the day. Does that make sense?
Regards, Jordi @jordipalet
El 9/2/21 15:11, "ripe-list en nombre de Job Snijders" < ripe-list-bounces@ripe.net en nombre de job@instituut.net> escribió:
Dear JORDI,
You have exceeded the commonly accepted daily quota of 5 emails.
Please allow others time to contemplate all the messages posted to the list, and formulate responses. You are not the only subscriber.
There is no need for you to fill up this mailing list as fast as you can write messages. Please come back at a later time.
Kind regards,
Job
********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
-- -- Ondřej Surý
On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 5:56 AM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list <ripe-list@ripe.net> wrote: [...]
To be part of this community you just need to participate.
No. To be a member of this community you only need to be present. That presence only requires joining a mailing list so that a person can choose to observe or participate. Posting to mailing lists is not a requirement. Regards, Leo
On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 01:29:46PM +0000, Jim Reid wrote:
You’re right that participation levels are low but there is no practical way to improve that. If there was, it would have been done. We can’t force people to post to the lists or come to meetings or submit policy proposals. This is a much, much wider problem in society. Countries can’t even get enough of their citizens to vote in elections.
Since you brought it up, I would like to point out that there is still the practice of sortition - election of representative bodies by random choice of the represented. The USA select their juries like this. A democratic legislature might work by a "vote or go in the random pool" system where the non-voter percentage of parliament is filled by random choice from the people who didn't vote. However, this generally relies on a duty to actually perform the role when randomly selected, and I don't think this can be implemented for RIPE. (Same "force people" problem.) It also only works for representative bodies with a size large enough to statistically smooth out the randomness, not for singular positions or decisions. That said, I still wanted to point out the existance of this scheme, since I very much agree with you that participation in democratic entities is a huge problem in need of some good thinking about. Cheers, -David
Greetings, On Tue, 9 Feb 2021, Jim Reid wrote:
On 9 Feb 2021, at 11:33, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list <ripe-list@ripe.net> wrote:
it may seem that ARIN and RIPE have more active participation, but if you look at it as % of membership, we are actually "worst" than other RIRs!
RIPE != RIPE NCC. RIPE doesn?t have a membership. And it?s not an RIR.
You?re right that participation levels are low but there is no practical way to improve that.
Yes, there is! What about stopping to mock people that make their first comment? Or stopping rants against people that join the lists because they are interested in supporting a specific policy change?
If there was, it would have been done.
No, because that is not, unfortunately, in the best interest of several people!
We can?t force people to post to the lists or come to meetings or submit policy proposals.
I agree it's not the best timeframe to discuss "come to meetings", but i must note that "come to meetings" has a price tag. Luckly "come to meetings" is not a requeriment to participate in the PDP! And about "submit policy proposals": when people see policies being shot down simply because _some_ people think all is marvellous (for their own best interest!) and the policies don't need _any_ change. What's the motivation to try to improve something?
This is a much, much wider problem in society. Countries can?t even get enough of their citizens to vote in elections.
If people choose not to vote, they let others decide on their behalf. At this point i worry a lot more about "electronic voting systems" that can twist voters' votes. -- just to be clear: i'm NOT talking about the system used by the RIPE NCC.
A few weeks ago, I was already considering to send a new policy proposal to make some other changes in the PDP. I will start working on that
I think you need to pause for a few months and then think *very* carefully before proceeding Jordi.
This is a fine example of what i was writing above! Is this some kind of warning or menace??!?!?!?
You also need to pay attention to the advice that you appear to have previously ignored: for instance the need for clear problem statements. You seem to think you have given a clear problem statement(s). Nobody else does.
You also need to accept that what you think IS NOT a "clear problem statement" may be a very clear problem statement for others. So please, don't speak on MY behalf, and let the PDP flow! Regards, Carlos
A more in depth reading of "Review of the RIPE Appeals Procedure", which I already sent to the chairs-team: While I basically agree with most of the points, I've some comments: Regarding recommendation 1, may be some of the timings and roles should be better defined in the PDP. I think the PDP must be self-contained, not PDP in one document and other documents, it becomes a mess, difficult to follow and at the end everything needs to be decided by the community bottom-up consensus process. Regarding r. 2, this was one of the points that I raised. I'm not reviewing now all the emails exchange, just from top of my head, I'd doubts during the process. I think it must be clear that, as part of the process (with the actual PDP, not considering yet my policy proposal) an ad-hoc mailing list with the non-recused WGCC should be created when there is an appeal to handle all the process (I guess including the Policy Officer or other RIPE NCC staff). The list of those participants should be crystal clear and published, right after the appeal is submitted, as a matter or transparency. .... I was writing this at the same time as reading the document ... I just realized that this is your r. 3! R. 4. I understand that the recusing also must be done for those WG chairs that *have* participated in the policy proposal discussion. I recall (as an example), in this concrete appeal, some of them actually self-recused, others not. One recused because he was already working with me in another policy proposal for the same topic. I think this is fair, but somehow it should be automatic. I still believe that this requires a PDP update. R. 5. The appeal said things that are against the PDP ... or against what chairs declared in the non-consensus decision. I've sent an email about that. Again, from top of my head: there is nothing in the PDP that avoids me to send a new version of the policy proposal (there is NO WAY in the PDP for any WG chairs to REJECT or DELAY the publication of a proposal/version, etc.), however chairs said that. And the appeal result indicated otherwise ... R. 6. I think my policy proposal resolves that. May be just need to detail that "one of Appeal Committee members will be selected by the group to chair the sessions". R. 7, looks a duplication of previous inputs, anyway, I think again my proposal already resolves that, as it is clear that the appellant also must have the right to indicate who has a conflict with him/her and should participate in the appeal. R. 8. Agree. R.9. I don't agree here. The PDP is clearly modified by the PDP itself. This is also the way followed by all the other RIRs, and the way we used to make the last change (I was the author of https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2018-04). However, I agree that it will be better to remove "The RIPE Chair is the author and owner of this document.". There is actually something that I've already discussed several times with Marco (when he was PO) and Hans Peter (when he was RIPE Chair) and we never progressed about that: - In none of the other RIRs the policies have "attribution" neither "acknowledgments". A Policy proposal becomes a policy because the community "edits" it by means of work with the author(s). If we decide that the policies should list the authors and ack section, let's do it for *ALL THEM*, like the IETF documents. When I edit an IETF document, I remain for the entire life of the document (RFC, STD, etc.), as author(s), and I list in the ack section *all* the people that has participated (not those that just provided grammar edits ...). In the RIPE policies, some of them have an attribution or ack section (I never used that in any of my policy proposals), but others did (examples RIPE-710, RIPE-705, RIPE-682, etc.). I think we should be consistent. Or we include that section in all the "actual" policies, or we delete it from all them (I prefer this one, it is a community work). R. 10. Radically disagree here! This kind of filtering is artificial, and only leads to "luck". If those that don't like a proposal idea are more pro-active, the proposal is dead and has no opportunities. No other RIRs are doing this. ARIN is a bit different because the AC. This is in fact against the PDP, in the sense, that as said before, chairs can't delay, or reject a policy proposal if the scope is the one in the WG. Regarding having co-authors, I usually try, like in IETF, but in most of the occasions the experience shows that is negative. I've been in situations in IETF and LACNIC, where my co-authors, didn't replied at all, I was "holding" a new version of the proposal because lack of response, etc., etc., etc. I must say that, this even happened to me in one of the RIPE policy proposals (not in all the others that I've got co-authors). So, yes, I'm happy to work with co-authors, but only if they are really proactive and that means reacting in hours, not "weeks" or "months". Note that my inputs are not only as the one that formulated the recent appeal, but also trying to be *outside of that situation*. In fact, that was the reason why I sent the policy proposal, which I still think it is absolutely necessary. I don't understand why hast not been published yet. The PDP doesn't allow delaying or "holding" a proposal. I agree that editorial inputs, clarifications, etc. can be provided, etc., but nothing else! If you think that some of the comments here should be incorporated in the policy proposal, I've no problem with that, but I'm clear that it must be a different body, not the WGCC and that we must move on now! I'm clearly unsatisfied with the appeal result, however, I was completely sure that will be the result when I submitted it and understood the procedure re-reading RIPE-710 and knowing that many co-chairs have participated in the policy proposal discussion. Same group of people (colleagues) from the relevant WG chairs, can't "most of the time" objectively, reject the decision of their colleagues. It is just human! Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 9/2/21 11:58, "ripe-list en nombre de Mirjam Kuehne" <ripe-list-bounces@ripe.net en nombre de mir@zu-hause.nl> escribió: Dear colleagues, The RIPE Working Group Chairs met in January to review the appeal and to exchange experiences with regard to the RIPE Policy Development Process. We also discussed the meeting plan for the upcoming RIPE 82 Meeting. You can find a summary from the meeting here: https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/wg-chairs/working-group-chair-colle... Kind regards, Mirjam Kühne RIPE Chair ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
participants (10)
-
Carlos Friaças -
David Lamparter -
Gert Doering -
Jim Reid -
Job Snijders -
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ -
Leo Vegoda -
Mirjam Kuehne -
Ondřej Surý -
Peter Koch