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

Dear Martin,

Thank you for extending a welcome to me and for engaging in this important
dialogue. I am grateful for the opportunity to share my perspective and to
deepen my involvement with the RIPE community.

In your email, you highlighted the importance of being a well-informed and
active member of the community, particularly in the context of voting for
leadership positions. However, the growing inconsistency surrounding the
nature of this process — whether it was intended as a public call for
candidate support, a forum for expressing opinions, or an element of a
specific selection procedure — is of considerable concern. This lack of
clarity, which appears to be more than coincidental, has left myself, and
possibly others, in a state of doubt regarding the appropriate way to
respond and participate. My actions were based on the directives issued by
the current chairs, yet I now find myself questioning if there might be a
deeper, possibly unspoken, agenda underpinning these communications. While
it perhaps truly is coincidentally inconvenient that such ambiguities were
not adequately addressed prior to "unusual traffic in the list”, I would
greatly appreciate your guidance in shedding light on the true purpose and
framework of this initiative.

In my quest to navigate through this entanglement, I delved into the
historical records of our mailing list. My investigation revealed a notably
sparse flow of communication, with only about 20 emails exchanged annually
on average. Given that we are now approaching the year's end, I am
expecting that someone might at some point propose a thoughtful reduction
in email traffic for these remaining days of December. This strategy
potentially could preserve the customary communication patterns, ensuring a
well-balanced and smooth transition into the upcoming year, and potentially
revitalizing the usual dialogue dynamics within the list.

Despite these well designed roadblocks, I would like to offer some insights
into my involvement and interest in the RIPE community, which will allow
you to make informed decisions and not uninformed opinions.

I agree that knowing who we collaborate with is key for effective teamwork.
Acknowledging your concerns, I appreciate the chance to introduce myself.
Surely you have noticed that I've used my official email for group
subscription to affirm my genuine interest and identity, underscoring my
commitment to maintaining the integrity and trustworthiness of our voting
process.

As a philosopher and computational linguist with experience in training
language models and the ethics of big data, I believe I can offer insights
and expertise to the RIPE community.  My introduction to RIPE was through a
recommendation by Luka Perkov, a long-time collaborator, and a respected
member of the open source community. Over the past year, my research group
has extensively utilized statistical data, which has been very useful in
our work. At the University of Zagreb as well as at Entimem Ltd, we have
specialized in deep learning analysis of religious texts of various
religions, and RIPE's data has been helpful in measuring activities, aiding
our project proposals and research.

As I have now introduced myself in this e-mail as requested, I am now very
interested to learn more about other members in the same way, namely those
whose opinions are given weight in these discussions and decisions so that
I am at least given an opportunity to engage in the conversation. This
would not only foster a sense of safety and inclusion but also align with
the RIPE’s Code of Conduct, where it is stated that one of the main goals
of the RIPE community is “to help everyone feel safe and included. Many
people will be new to our community. Some may have had negative experiences
in other communities. We want to set a clear expectation that harassment
and related behaviours are not tolerated here. If people do have an
unpleasant experience, they will know that this is neither the norm nor
acceptable to us as a community.”

In closing, I would appreciate any information on how we collaborate and
meet outside of the RIPE meetings, so I can efficiently plan my
involvement. Additionally, if there are any resources, guidelines, or
specific contacts that could help me get started and blend more smoothly
into the team, I would be most grateful for that information. What I have
seen so far is very intriguing and I am very interested to understand the
dynamics of the community.

Warm regards,

Ines




pon, 18. pro 2023. u 11:25 Martin Winter <mwinter at netdef.org> napisao je:

> Ines.
>
> First of all welcome. And yes, you are one of the impacted persons as
> well who just joined the list after the RIPE meeting, not attended any
> recent RIPEs and were still informed well enough to immediatly vote
> after joining the list.
>
> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:14 AM Ines Skelac <ines.skelac at ffrz.hr> wrote:
> >
> > Dear RIPE Community,
> >
> > I am writing to express my disappointment and concern regarding the
> recent decision-making process for the open co-chair position in the RIPE
> community. As a new member of this esteemed group, I find the approach
> taken to be both disheartening and alarming.
>
> Is it really alarming that we don't allow votes from people who were
> not part of the community when the voting started? In all democracies
> I know,
> you have to be registered/present some time before the voting starts.
> If you would be part of the RIPE community for a bit longer then you
> would be aware that usually the voting would be at the meeting itself.
> We decided at the last minute to give people a bit more time after
> they heard each of them introducing themself at the meeting and give
> them 2 weeks to make up their minds. Maybe we should have been clear
> that later joins are not eligible to vote, but then you wouldn't have
> seen or heard that anyway as you were not yet part of the community.
>
> So instead of making wild accusations that this is alarming, please
> take yourself as an example and explain why YOUR vote should count.
> Explain how you know about the voting and how you heard about ALL of
> the candidates and about your past experience with RIPE (which got you
> a bit familiar with the community, our goal of the WG) - which I
> assume you all know to be able to pick the best candidate.
> Please be aware, we didn't look for the most popular person or the one
> with the most followers or the best Open Source background. We were
> looking for the best choice for a WG chair. How this is defined might
> be viewed differently by each person.
>
> If you can explain this, then we might be happy to reconsider counting
> your vote.
> So far, the only ones complaining are the ones who signed up days
> after the meeting and voted immediately.
>
> > The decision to disqualify votes from new members who may not have had
> the opportunity to attend a RIPE meeting or were not subscribed to the
> mailing list by a specific date seems not only unfair but also
> counterproductive. This approach overlooks the potential contributions of
> new members and creates an unwelcoming environment. It also appears to be
> grounded in logical fallacies, such as the 'post hoc ergo propter hoc'
> fallacy, which undermines the rationality of this decision.
>
> Please be aware that you can attend RIPE for free from remote. No
> travel required. No money required. This is a very low entry level.
> And no, this does not produce a unwelcoming environment, but protects
> the working group to be not potentially controlled by some outside
> force.
> By your definition, welcoming would mean that I can create a bot to
> create votes and you expect them to be counted. Or I can go and ask
> all my friends to join and vote in exchange for a beer. This has
> nothing to do with welcoming, but all about protecting the integrity
> of the vote.
>
> I welcome you to join the next RIPE meeting and bring up this in
> person to discuss with the whole group.
>
> Regards,
>    Martin Winter
>    Open Source WG Chair
>
> >
> > Moreover, such a stance is unacademic and unethical. It disregards the
> principles of open dialogue and diversity of perspectives, which are
> crucial in any intellectual community. Disqualifying members without
> substantial evidence and not acknowledging the value of fresh perspectives
> can severely damage the integrity and reputation of the RIPE community.
> >
> > As a new member eager to contribute, this experience is not only
> disheartening but also raises concerns about the future direction of the
> community. I urge the leadership to reconsider this approach and adopt more
> inclusive and equitable practices. The strength of a community lies in its
> diversity and openness to all voices, including those of its newest members.
> >
> > I hope that my concerns will be taken seriously and that we can work
> together towards a more inclusive and respectful RIPE community.
> >
> >
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Ines Skelac, PhD, Assistant Professor
> >
> > Vice-dean for Science, International Cooperation, Management and Quality
> Assurance
> >
> > University of Zagreb, Faculty of Philosophy and Religious Studies
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > sub, 16. pro 2023. u 23:45 Ondřej Surý <ondrej at dns.rocks> napisao je:
> >>
> >> Oh, I didn’t want to imply any intentional wrongdoing. I simply
> suggested that stepping down in such situation might be the best way to
> acknowledge the less than ideal situation and prevent the possible argument
> that might drag for a long time.
> >>
> >> Ondrej
> >>
> >> On Sat, Dec 16, 2023, at 23:22, Martin Winter wrote:
> >>
> >> Ondrej,
> >>
> >> On Sat, Dec 16, 2023 at 9:31 PM Ondřej Surý <ondrej at dns.rocks> wrote:
> >> > The way I read the decision from the chair, they strive to have the
> voting process work for the existing community. If suddenly there’s a surge
> of people who were never active in this community subscribing to the
> mailing list and voting for any of the candidates, I would consider this be
> a kind of hostile takeover.
> >> >
> >> > Honestly, I think the only fair way out of this would be if the
> candidate who received the surge of votes from people outside of this
> community stepped down. A co-chair elected with votes from people who never
> participated in the RIPE community would not be accepted by this community
> and it would be divisive and toxic to the future work.
> >>
> >> I don't like to go this far. We (as the chairs) have no proof or
> >> indication that any of the candidates actively tried to manipulate the
> >> voting. However, some candidates might be more popular in their own
> >> social circles and may have mentioned that they are candidates. And I
> >> think that's all good and fair.
> >> I can't blame the candidates for this or for the fact if someone then
> >> just signed up to vote for him. I have no indication that he/she
> >> motivated them to do this.
> >> As such, I assume all candidates are innocent and did not try to
> >> manipulate the voting.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>     Martin Winter
> >>     Open Source WG Chair
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Ondřej Surý (He/Him)
> >> ondrej at sury.org
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> opensource-wg mailing list
> >> opensource-wg at ripe.net
> >> https://mailman.ripe.net/
> >>
> >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or
> change your subscription options, please visit:
> https://mailman.ripe.net/
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > opensource-wg mailing list
> > opensource-wg at ripe.net
> > https://mailman.ripe.net/
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or
> change your subscription options, please visit:
> https://mailman.ripe.net/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/opensource-wg/attachments/20231219/1a1f7de1/attachment-0001.html>