[Accountability-tf] Updated Draft Report - Comments Requested

On 23/01/2019 16:55, Antony Gollan wrote:
> Dear task force members,
> 
> Now that we're in the new year, we are very keen to get the final steps
> of this accountability process finished. I should probably also add that
> this email is sent in coordination with William, who is busy with a
> meeting.
> 

I haven't had time to go back over Peter's and Jim comments to check
they've been fully disposed of. I'll try to look at that next week. In
the meantime, here are some comments on the latest draft.


> Attached is an updated report (still a work in progress). Changes are
> tracked, but there's really only three main parts that we would like you
> to consider:
> 
> - The section on RIPE Documents (page 16-19) has been updated based on
> Peter's comments from December[1].

This is a fairly chunky addition, not just some tweaking. It's also
quite critical in places.

I was about to write:

     It does prompt me to think it indicates implicitly some further
     recommendations that we haven't yet made. For example, if RIPE
     Documents that are products of the community are mixed up with
     products of the NCC, shouldn't we recommend that they be
     distinguished (better)?
     Ditto the other categories identified?

And then read through to the end, and found you'd added exactly that
recommendation. So, great! But perhaps signal in the body text what's
coming in the recommendations?

And what about the other categories (e.g. internal governance vs PDP
policy vs best practice vs whatever you'd call things like RIPE-464)?

> 
> - Last week, ripe-714, "The RIPE Chair" was published. This is
> essentially the role description that we were encouraging the community
> to finish in our recommendations. This affects the table (1.0 RIPE
> Chair), which starts on page 21.

In this, and a couple of other places, the drafting is as of a "moment
in time". Remember this document is supposed to have some enduring value.


> - Some changes to the recommendations (page 28) - but this may still
> change further.
> 
> 
> As we continue to finalise the document - we're wondering if you have
> any thoughts on the following points in particular:
> 
> 1. Does the updated RIPE Document section address Peter's comments
> properly? Does it need any further changes?

Probably. As I said, is the community/NCC distinction the only one
pointed to here that we should be distinguishing?

> 
> 2. Should we make changes based on Jim Reid's feedback?
> a) We are having trouble understanding how we could describe what each
> structure is accountable for beyond the various roles we have identified
> in the tables. We could make more high level comments - but to some
> extent this is already done in the introductions for each of the tables.

Perhaps ask him offlist what he's asking for?

> b) We are not sure how to take his comment that recommending that the
> community consider a single WG Chair selection process is out of scope
> for the TF

I would respectfully disagree with Jim on this point.

I think he's assuming we are _requiring_ a single WG Chair selection
process, which would be beyond our authority. All we're doing is
pointing up that it's an anomaly, and calling for the community to
discuss the merits and demerits of a single process.


> 3. The new RIPE Chair document seems problematic for the document in a
> couple of ways:
> a) We currently have a recommendation that the RIPE Chair should report
> back to the community on his activities - but the new document says "The
> RIPE chair reports their actions to the community as appropriate." Does
> this mean we should remove this recommendation?

I'm happy to leave it, as this is crucial.

> b) Most of the various roles of the RIPE Chair were identified as "Needs
> review" - primarily because there was only a draft document at the time.
> If this document has since reached consensus, does this mean by
> definition that it now "Meets expectations"? Or alternatively, should
> the task force take time to consider these?

If we write "meets expectations", that states that *we* consider they
meet expectations. We should not write that for anything we have not
reviewed.

If we are unwilling to review such recent work, we could use alternative
wording, e.g. "Reviewed and updated by the community Q1 2019"


> If possible, we would like any comments by the end of next week (1
> February). We can also arrange a call if there is interest in doing so.
> We would like to get this wrapped up soon if possible - but the emphasis
> should be on getting it right.
> 


-- 
            Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523
   Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog
 London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/

                 London Internet Exchange Ltd
           Monument Place, 24 Monument Street London EC3R 8AJ

         Company Registered in England No. 3137929
       Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA