[members-discuss] External thoughts on the Executive Board Election TF
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] External thoughts on the Executive Board Election TF
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] External thoughts on the Executive Board Election TF
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Cynthia Revström
me at cynthia.re
Sat Nov 7 13:12:15 CET 2020
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://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss > >>> Unsubscribe: > >>> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/me%40cynthia.re > >>> > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > members-discuss mailing list > > members-discuss at ripe.net > > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss > > Unsubscribe: > > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/lysis%40lys.is > > _______________________________________________ > members-discuss mailing list > members-discuss at ripe.net > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss > Unsubscribe: > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/me%40cynthia.re > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20201107/bb32e00c/attachment-0001.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] External thoughts on the Executive Board Election TF
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] External thoughts on the Executive Board Election TF
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]