[opensource-wg] Call for support of co-chair candidates

Paul,

On Sat, Dec 16, 2023 at 6:02 PM Paul Arola <paul.arola at gmail.com> wrote:
> Initially, the voting process was defined by specific and clear guidelines. The retrospective amendment of these criteria after the election raises significant concerns about transparency and the integrity of the democratic process within our community. Changing these rules post-factum sets a precedent that is both unexpected and concerning.
>

Actually, no. The decision to move it to the mailing list was
something which wasn't initially planned. Initially, the idea would
have been to vote during the session. We (Marcos and myself and while
discussing this with other WG Chairs) decided then to move it to the
list, as we were not sure on how to do the voting with remote
attendees and not everyone can attend all the meetings, but we still
wanted to have all of the participants of the OS-WG to be able
to vote. For the ones here who are not 10+ years with the OS WG, this
was actually the first time we had to vote.
Before that it was just Marcos who joined last year, but with one
opening and one candidate, there was just a formal confirmation at the
meeting. (And I was never voted in, as I started the WG long time
back). And just to be clear, I'm very happy to hear that we have now
multiple candidates.

> This decision also raises questions about the RIPE Open Source Working Group's approach to collaboration. The use of terms like "our open source arena" only confirms exclusivity and combativeness, which is not conducive to the open and collaborative nature of open source communities. It goes against the spirit of open source, which emphasizes inclusivity and community-driven development.

Moreover, the chairs did not provide a clear explanation as to why the voting rules needed to be changed in the first place. The only rationale offered was a reference to "unusual traffic" on the mailing list during the past two weeks. However, upon observation, this traffic is only related to the voting process, which was explicitly requested and encouraged by the chairs themselves. Clearly, such a perspective suggests a desire to maintain existing power dynamics and unfortunately limits new engagement.

If you ask me on more detail: We had a lot of people signing up to the
mailing list and then immediatly vote within their first 24hrs. When
we looked at these
persons, we noticed that they had no previous history with the Working
Group and not attended any RIPE meetings either locally or from remote
at least for the past 3+ years. So, the question comes down to how do
they even know about the vote? They haven't seen the call to vote and
they didn't attend the meeting.
Also, how likely do these people even know the other candidates to
make a good decision. This is after all, not a recognition for good
past work, but we are looking at some candidate who can help us to get
the most out of the working group?

> This approach contradicts the very essence of a dynamic, community-driven platform, where open discussion and participation are fundamental. The lack of a substantive explanation for altering the voting rules post-factum, coupled with the dismissal of voting-related activity as "unusual," suggests a preference for maintaining existing power dynamics over fostering a vibrant, participatory community discourse.

No. RIPE is not a set of fixed rules and anyone attending RIPE for a
long time probably know this. As the community, we try to guess what
is best for the community. And we are only humans. But we posted this
message specifically to hear from the rest of this community. We
outlined what we planned to do with the votes and wanted feedback. So
far, all other feedback seems to support our decision.

> Instead of the newly minted and spontaneously crafted criteria revealed to us this morning, I propose a more transparent approach. It would be more enlightening for the chairs to publicly detail the reasons behind each voter's acceptability or unacceptability, moving away from the arbitrary constructs they have presented here. Providing transparency to both the voters and the candidates would offer much-needed insights from the chairs that define what constitutes an 'eligible' voter and clarify the operation of this "arena."

So how about you introduce yourself? Just speak for yourself. You,
Paul, are one of these persons who signed up to the mailing list and
voted on the same day, while quoting "long time lurker, first time
poster". And from our records, you haven't attended any RIPE meeting
at least since RIPE 80. So, the question would be, would you
potentially be a new active part of the community or did you just join
because you heard that someone you highly regard is running for the WG
chair position?

> As part of that process, it would be constructive if the chairs could offer guidance on how those currently deemed 'unfit' voters might become eligible in the future, as well as any potential pitfalls that current 'eligible' voters should avoid to maintain their status. Such openness would greatly aid in demystifying the voting process and ensuring a fair and inclusive community environment.

Simple: Be part of the community for more than a few days. Would be
great if we could see some of these new subscribers to stick around
and even attend a RIPE meeting in the future. Preferably in person,
but if this isn;t possible, then join it virtual. Or join some
discussions, start a discussion etc.

> Thank you for considering this feedback. I look forward to a constructive and open discussion on these matters.

Thanks for your feedback. We are open to discuss and do what we
believe is right to get this community thriving. In general, RIPE
works a lot based on good faith and working together.

Regards,
    Martin Winter
    Open Source WG Co-Chair