[members-discuss] External thoughts on the Executive Board Election TF

Marcus,

This was pretty much the point I was trying to make, thank you for putting
it into words better than I could :)

- Cynthia


On Sat, Nov 7, 2020 at 1:04 PM Marcus Stoegbauer <lysis at lys.is> wrote:

> [ trimmed down excessive CC list ]
>
> My definition of self appointed doesn’t seem to line up with yours.
> The task force was appointed by the Executive Board and made up from
> members of the community. Can you please elaborate where the “self
> appointed” claim is coming from?
>
> I also would like to strongly oppose the notion that such mailing lists
> need to be public. The mailing list was a communication tool to form
> thoughts and guide discussion towards the goal of the task force. Free
> discussions within a task force IMO can only happen when the task force
> can openly voice their opinions without thinking about how they are
> perceived by a wider public audience. The discussions might as well
> exclusively happen in video calls, and I sure hope you wouldn’t
> request access of the public to those calls.
>
> In summary: task forces are formed to work out a goal, for which they
> require privacy. Minutes of the discussions and regular updates (if
> it’s a longer running process) can be sensible to keep the public
> informed, but with this task force the final report contained plenty of
> information. Additionally, the final report was presented to the members
> and there was a vote on the relevant passages, so I fail to see how
> damages could be done by this proceeding.
>
>     Marcus
>
> On 7 Nov 2020, at 12:23, Harry Cross wrote:
>
> > I don't agree unfortunately, and I don't think self appointed groups
> > within
> > the NCC should be allowed to lock themselves away to make decisions
> > about
> > this sort of thing without some form of scrutiny. The mailing list
> > doesn't
> > have to be open to all to reply too, but at least to give a live
> > overview
> > of what is going on.
> >
> > At the moment it looks like a self appointed group was allowed to make
> > recommendations, without any sort of chain of thought being made
> > public until after it had happened and the damage has been done. RIPE
> > Board, I would like to suggest that a rule is instigated in future to
> > prohibit any mailing list being made private (bar anything for the
> > members only), so that proper scrutiny of the work of the NCC and it's
> > TFs
> > can be undertaken.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Harry
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Nov 7, 2020 at 9:53 AM Cynthia Revström <me at cynthia.re>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> (directed to EB)
> >> The archives appear to be gone, this needs to be fixed.
> >>
> >> (directed to Harry)
> >> The doodles were just scheduling times when the TF members were
> >> available
> >> for calls.
> >>
> >>> Surely if the membership had requested for this to happen, it makes
> >> sense to allow them to be involved in the discussion.
> >>
> >> This is not quite true, it was the Executive Board who called for the
> >> Task
> >> Force to be created to write a report of suggested changes that the
> >> EB
> >> could present to the members for them to vote on.
> >>
> >>> Some people may not want to commit to a full task force membership,
> >>> but
> >> still give their view.
> >>
> >> Sadly I don't think this would have worked at all if it was a public
> >> mailing list. We needed a group of people who were invested into the
> >> issue
> >> and not have a bunch of comments from all over the place.
> >> The diversity-tf is/was(?) an open mailing list, that pretty much
> >> failed
> >> in my opinion due to it, and I think that this TF would have had the
> >> same
> >> outcome if it was open.
> >>
> >> -Cynthia
> >>
> >> On Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 18:02 Harry Cross <me at harrycross.me> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi all,
> >>> I've just had a cursory glance through the report and the mailing
> >>> list
> >>> minutes.
> >>>
> >>> I'd like to ask why the mailing list was not open to all please, I
> >>> saw
> >>> the minutes mentioned this but there was no explanation of why?
> >>> Surely if
> >>> the membership had requested for this to happen, it makes sense to
> >>> allow
> >>> them to be involved in the discussion. Some people may not want to
> >>> commit
> >>> to a full task force membership, but still give their view.
> >>>
> >>> I also tried to get to the Doodles and they don't work. Are they
> >>> public
> >>> at all please?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks
> >>>
> >>> Harry
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>> members-discuss mailing list
> >>> members-discuss at ripe.net
> >>> https://mailman.ripe.net/
> >>> Unsubscribe:
> >>> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/me%40cynthia.re
> >>>
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > members-discuss mailing list
> > members-discuss at ripe.net
> > https://mailman.ripe.net/
> > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/lysis%40lys.is
>
> _______________________________________________
> members-discuss mailing list
> members-discuss at ripe.net
> https://mailman.ripe.net/
> Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/me%40cynthia.re
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20201107/bb32e00c/attachment-0001.html>