[Accountability-tf] Updated Draft Report - Comments Requested

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.

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].

- 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.

- 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?

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.
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

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?
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 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.


Emails for reference:

[1] Peter's comments:
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/accountability-tf/2018-December/000227.html

[2] Jim's original email:
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ripe-list/2018-November/001460.html

[3] Jim's second email:
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ripe-list/2018-December/001475.html


Cheers

Antony


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Accountability Task Force Draft Report-23Jan.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 102458 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/accountability-tf/attachments/20190123/154077dc/attachment-0001.docx>