[Accountability-tf] Important: Please Review Mapping Document by Sunday

Good Morning fellow TF members,

> You can find the latest version of the document here:
> https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/accountability-
> tf/2017-April/000082.html

thanks to the NCC for keeping this list continuously updated!

I had already mentioned during one of the calls that I feel it
is important to not only judge based on the formal paper situation
(as in: is a process documented?) but also assess the way the
processes are "lived" and whether they follow the spirit and/or
the letter of a documented process (or one of the 'unwritten ruels').

I stumbled acroos 2.3, suggesting that WG chairs "Announce final best
practice documents (or other output) created by WGs".  My recollection
was that we had always sought an endorsement by the Friday plenary, but
that might have been done dfferently over time and across WGs.
This leads to a broader question of what the process for RIPE document
publication, review, status classification (including obsoletion) is.
This might need an addition to section 9.

I'd really like the TF to have a closer look at the "WG chair selection
process" and the qpplicability of "consensus process" to questions
of personnel appointment as well as the PDP, especially the role of the
proposer during the PDP (can drop the ball and process restarts), the
applicability of the PDP to the PDP, the appropriateness of the
WG centric approach for cross WG issues (visibility, transparency,
and widest clueful contributuon).
Also, the "+1" "consensus building" could benefit from a critical review.

Regards,
   Peter