[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] Moderation Please
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sascha Luck [ml]
ripe-md at c4inet.net
Sat Nov 7 14:57:42 CET 2020
On Sat, Nov 07, 2020 at 01:01:30PM +0100, Marcus Stoegbauer wrote: >In summary: task forces are formed to work out a goal, for which they >require privacy. Minutes of the discussions and regular updates (if >itâs 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. 1) the members of RIPE NCC are not "the public", they are the *owners* of the NCC. Everyone would do well to keep this fact in mind. 2) Minutes and proceedings of a "task force" that undertakes to make changes to the governance of the NCC (such as to pre-select who may be elected to the Board) should *absolutely* be public. They are important information to help decide which way to vote on whatever AoA changes fall out of this. 3) The TF report did *not* contain "plenty of information", in fact it omitted the most important details - such as: who determines what constitutes "fraud or financial irregularities" and who determines that such exist, or who decides what makes a candidate ineligible for election to the EB. My impression from the GM is that these processes are still vague and largely unresolved. rgds, Sascha Luck
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] External thoughts on the Executive Board Election TF
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] Moderation Please
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]