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

I do still think that there should have been some more transparency when
the report was published for those interested, such as easier to find the
meeting minutes, and also I don't know why the mailing list archive is no
longer available.

- Cynthia


On Sat, Nov 7, 2020 at 1:12 PM Cynthia Revström <me at cynthia.re> wrote:

> 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/e0fdcdb6/attachment.html>