RIPE restructuring

[Milan Sterba <]

Hello Anne, 

here is a rough draft of a document I promissed to Rob to initiate 
discussion about RIPE restructuring. Happily Willem van der Scheun 
has published his on the RIPE list. I think Rob wanted to start it
on the wg-chairs list first but I don't know exactly what was his
intention.  Also this draft is certainly not intended for the whole
ripe-list but rather to a smaller group of interested people.

Maybe you do know better than I what Rob intended to do.

Sorry to bother you but time's getting short 

Best regards
Milan

---------

QUESTIONS AND [my] ANSWERS ON RIPE FUTURE
-----------------------------------------
to initiate the discussion


Shall we formalize RIPE membership and voting procedures ?
> I wouldn't touch this one yet. Agreement in the plenary is reached
> consensus.

Shall we formalize the management of RIPE ?
> I suggest that the chairman [+ vicechairmen if any] and the chairs
> of the WG's form the RIPE Council which would have the obligation of :
> 	- preparing the contents and the schedule of the RIPE meetings
>	  (work closely with the RIPE NCC)
>	- reviewing the work of RIPE NCC
>	- reviewing the docs if we decide so
>	- defining the RIPE program (whatever it is)
>	- deciding (if it is needed) in specified areas
> 	  even between the meetings (e.g. RIPE liaisons,
>	  presentations
> 	- identify problem areas in European Internet
>	  coordination and propose solutions

Level of commitment to RIPE work ? Official support ?
> Every member of the Council should obtain a written commitment 
> of his employer to commit a certain amount of his time to the
> work for RIPE (1-2 days/week) and cover travel costs for 3-4 meetings/year.
> This commitment should be limited in time (min. one year, max two).

How are WG's created and disbandled ?
> Each WG must have a short and concrete charter, with clearly specified
> tasks. The group will only be created if consensus is reached on the
> charter, the importance of the topic is evaluated as high, consensus
> is reached on the chairman and there exists enough commitment to the
> work of the WG in the RIPE community. The WG is then entitled to get
> support from the NCC and the chairman becomes automatically member of
> the council. 

How is WG activity evaluated ?
> Every RIPE meeting the attendees fill a RIPE activity evaluation sheet.
> Here they will regularly evaluate the importance and the performance 
> of the WG and it's chair. This will serve as a guidance to the WG
> chairs and the council, which may take appropriate measures. Each
> WG will have a mandate limited in time and the charter of the WG
> will have to be reevaluated every 4-5 meetings (?). Other criteria may
> be applied to the WG activity as well - WG session attendance, activity
> on the mailing list, number of documents and other outputs from the
> WG. Evaluation sheets may also be accepted from the ripe-list
> members electronically.

How are WG chairs appointed and changed ?
> Every WG chair gets a 4-5 meetings mandate after which he has to
> be reconfirmed by the community. This can be either joined to the WG
> charter update/reconfirmation or separated. The council can take 
> internal measures to change the WG chair during the mandate (TBD).

Responsabilities of the WG chairs ?
> 	- animate the work of the WG (also between the meetings)
> 	- prepare the agenda of WG meetings and cooperate
>	  on general agenda of the RIPE meeting
>	- report about the meeting to the assembly
> 	- stimulate large international cooperation in the
>	  field of activity of the WG
>	- help newcommers to get basic orientation in the 
>	  field of activity
>	- stick to the charter of the WG or initiate changes 
>	  according to new situation
> 	- make the time of life of the WG as short as possible (?)
>	- identify problems in the field of activity and
>	  define and solve new tasks aiming at solving these
>	  problems
>	- keep track and stimulate timely closing of action points
>	  accepted at meetings

How are temporary activities handled ?
> Either as actions on RIPE community members or if needed as WG's
> which will be dissolved once the work is done.

Formalization of the decision process ?
> Consensus in the plenaries and simple majority of votes in the 
> council.

How is the chair and vice-chairs appointed ?
> Consensus among the attendees of the meeting. They get a 6-7 meetings
> mandate which can be reconfirmed by the assembly.

What are their duties and rights ?
> 	- attend RIPE meetings
>	- contribute actively to the work of RIPE between meetings
>	- promote RIPE and represent RIPE to the external world
>	- animate activities in the WG's
>	- stimulate cooperation between other bodies active in the same area
>	- strive to conciliate problems which may arise between service 
>	  providers in the European Internet and which affect the global
>	  quality of Internet service
> 	- review work of the WG and WG chairs and propose
> 	  solutions of identified problems to the council and the assembly

> Every chair/vicechair should obtain a written commitment of his
> employer to support his activity and allow him to dedicate 1-2days/week
> to RIPE affairs and to support travel cost for 5 meetings/year.

Open and close meetings ?
Introductory sessions - tutorial programme ?
> Every RIPE meeting session should be tagged as open or restricted.
> The difference not being in not allowing other than invited people
> to come but to work in accordance to certain predefined rules, which
> would as general principle allow anyone to actively participate
> or give the WG chair the right to stop questions and discussions
> which are either out the of the scope of the session or would 
> decrease the technical level of the discussion. (shortly said
> the non initiated can only silently sit and listen :-).

> At each RIPE meeting half a day will be dedicated to one or
> more tutorial sessions on hot topics in the Internet. It is
> the responsability of the council to prepare such tutorials
> and insure their technical quality. Only restricted meetings
> can take place parallely to tutorials.

> some examples of tutorial topics: IPxg, mbone, introduction to
> RIPE registration and RIPE DB procedures, making DNS work well,
> IETF activities reports ...


Plenary meetings only or separate WG meetings ?
> To make work of the working groups progress more rapidly, the WG
> chairs can convene a meeting off the usual RIPE meetings but have
> to report to the plenary soon after the meeting.

RIPE working plan ?
Periodical revisions of the RIPE working plan ?
> Besides the RIPE terms of reference the chair/vicechairs should 
> regularly prepare and update a RIPE working plan (say for next
> 3-4 meetings) containing general directions of RIPE and the most
> important activities in the near future. This plan should be presented 
> and consented to by the plenary and should be accepted by the council 
> as an official document.


Starting from this meeting the RIPE attendees should fill an evaluation
sheet (signature on it is not obligatory). This should serve the council
as a guidance to future modifications of the RIPE activities and working
plan.

Evaluation of RIPE activity by RIPE attendees
RIPE meeting evaluation sheets

	- WG and TF evaluation (output, perenity, importance of the topic)
	- WG chair evaluation
	- RIPE direction evaluation
	- new activities prioritization
	- WG participants activity evaluation (vs. one man shows)

Other evaluation criteria 
	
	- attendance of WG meetins
	- activity on the mailing list
	- number of action items and fullfillment ratio
	- chairman activity between meetings



-- 
======================================================================
Prague University of Economics		e-mail : Milan.Sterba@localhost
Computing Center			tel : +42 2 24 21 79 00
nam. W. Churchilla 4			home: +42 2 823 78 59	
130 67 Praha 3				fax : +42 2 24 22 42 66
Czech republic
=======================================================================