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

I appreciate the opportunity to introduce myself. With my experience
as Chair of the GiGAWire Task Force in the HomeGrid Forum and my
involvement in various open source initiatives at TELUS, particularly
in G.hn related activities, I am well-prepared to contribute to the
RIPE community.

Regarding my initial concerns about transparency and integrity, they
may point to deeper challenges within RIPE’s processes. Addressing
these issues head-on is crucial for fostering an environment where
trust is reinforced and collaboration is encouraged.

That said, I've noticed the absence of a readily available strategic
plan or list of the group's activities. Understanding the group's
goals and direction would enable me to align my efforts more
effectively. Could you please guide me to this information?

Lastly, as a newcomer, I'm eager to learn more about the other members
of the community. While I'm somewhat familiar with some, I look
forward to getting to know others. How do we facilitate introductions,
particularly from established members of the email list?

Thanks,

-paul

On Sat, Dec 16, 2023 at 3:13 PM Martin Winter <mwinter at netdef.org> wrote:
>
> 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