[cooperation-wg] The Working Group

Thanks Collin for this. Thanks again!

My question was for those people you talked to privately and others like them. In other words the WG. It was not specifically for the co-chair(s).

What you were hearing sound like a typical conference, academic or otherwise. Some small group - programme committee, co-chairs, whatever - puts together a bunch of speakers. The audience is invited to rate them afterwards. But the discussion goes on in private conversations over coffee. We all know that works. But it seems to be yet another distinct step away from what the community used to do. So is it what we want?

Anecdote. Recently I posted something on the BEREC consultation. There was nice response from Julf. And that was it. Except somebody - another lurker! - picked up the content and kindly mentioning my name posted elsewhere. There was a bit more interaction there.

So this bright shiny new thing I am thinking of posting? Is this list still appropriate? Or should I post elsewhere. I don’t feel like cross-posting. But feedback would be nice.

Anyway I very much appreciated the programme that Meredith put together for Copenhagen. But the Berec consultation and undoubtedly other things will be over and done with before Madrid. So my question about this list is still to the WG.

Best,

Gordon


> On 20 Jun 2016, at 18:36, Collin Anderson <collin at measurementlab.net> wrote:
> 
> I see this area as important. Well I would! And I am not giving up right now. But what to others think?
> 
> In Copenhagen and Bucharest, I raised this issue with a few people privately – "what is the role of Coop to you, and is there an unaddressed space that it needs to extend into?" I had assumed from the outset that the lull of the mailing list would be problematic, but instead most people seemed to see the group as a space in involve other communities and create room for discussions that would not otherwise fall under existing WGs. It seems that people overall were satisfied with the WG's primary activity taking place at the RIPE meetings, and the sessions spill into the break time because there is such a vibrant discussion. 
> 
> So, I would frame it less as a existential question about the need for the group and pose the question as: are there unaddressed needs that future co-chairs should encourage more active participation in?
> 
> As for my own silence on the role of the co-chair, that's a product of the process. As Jim had rightly noted last week, there was some semblance of a timeframe that I had proposed but had not been followed. Had it been, rather than opening space for discussion, by June 1, and in fact in the midst of the Copenhagen meeting, there had been already a determination made by a fair amount of people about preferences. As such, that was effective as disincentivizing any further discussion from those who had offered their names, and hence quiet. 
> 
> On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 5:19 AM, Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com <mailto:gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com>> wrote:
> Jim asked some questions about a week ago and while we are waiting for a reply I feel I should ask one more.
> 
> Do people actually want this Working Group?
> 
> I see we get good attendance at the sessions during RIPE meetings. But traditionally WGs have also been very much about the mailing lists. A WG cannot just be about private conversations.
> 
> The amount and style of contributions to this list, the lack of conversations about content, makes me feel that while people may be interested they are not actually interested enough to say anything. OK I have been on lists long enough to know that there are always many “lurkers”. Well we all know that. But there has to be some activity to make even that worthwhile. But I also note that while we had four candidates for co-chair they too seem remarkably silent. That is an indication of how they see the role of co-chair? I think it can be important for WGs to know what chairs and co-chairs think.
> 
> I see this area as important. Well I would! And I am not giving up right now. But what to others think?
> 
> Gordon
> 
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/cooperation-wg/attachments/20160620/81b3c39d/attachment.html>