[Accountability-tf] RIPE Accountability Task Force Call Today, 2-3pm

On 6 February 2017 at 15:19, Filiz Yilmaz <koalafil at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Peter Koch <pk at denic.de> wrote:
> > Dear all,
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 10:46:09AM +0100, Antony Gollan wrote:
> >
> >> 20163011-1: Task force members to each come up with a few topics they
> >> want the Task Force to address and share this on the mailing list.
> >
> > one of the important tasks of the RIPE community is to set policy,
> > mostly for the NCC to execute. Policy is guided by the PDP and
> > steered by the chairs of the working groups concerned.
> >
>
> Agreed. Looking into how PDP is used and the consistency of its
> application across RIPE fits into our scope, as well as explaining
> when and how not using the full PDP gets chosen, why imo.
>

I agree. The PDP is one of the most important bits.

I have some times asked the question:
We say the RIPE community is so much bigger than the RIPE NCC membership.
But of you look at how many participate on the address-policy list it is a
small fraction of the 15 000 members.


>
> (S)election of WG Chairs and their terms, how TFs are called out, how
> WGs are accepted or closed, how meeting scheduling takes place are
> other topics we may want to look deeper too.
>

This is also important.
and does it make sense to have different chair election procedures for each
wg?


>
> > The PDP itself and its implementation as well as the role of the
> > chairs and their (s)election could be an item for this TF.
>
> Maybe I am mis-reading your suggestion but the implementation is done
> by the RIPE NCC. Do you mean we should also look into how the NCC
> implements a policy that is accepted by the Community?
>


>
> > The most recent changes in the DB WG as well as the heterogeneity
> > of rules might serve as starting points.
> >
>
> Can you elaborate on this? What are these changes you are referring to
> in the DB WG?
> I have not followed this issue closely and maybe some others do not
> know about it either.
>

The selection process in itself had some surprising elements:
- all chairs up for selection at the same time
- unless a candidate stepped down it ended up with a draw from a hat.

Does this give the WG the best qualified chairs?
(you can also add some personal differences between the
chairs/candidates/wg-members to the mix)

You may want to review the process as well as the execution of the process
in all the wg's to see if they are fit for purpose.

--

Hans Petter Holen - hph at oslo.net - +47 45066054
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/accountability-tf/attachments/20170206/8770f3ef/attachment.html>