<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">Dear Martin,Thank you for your quick response. It's important for me to clarify my position regarding the RIPE chair selection process, and equally important to receive responses to my points that remain unanswered.Firstly, with respect to Luka Perkov, our interactions have been within a professional context. It is through these professional interactions that I have been introduced to RIPE and its various activities on multiple occasions. Regarding the other candidates, I assure you that my vote was cast following a thorough and informed examination of their profiles and contributions.During my research, I observed an instance where an individual associated with RIPE used their official <a href="http://ripe.net">ripe.net</a> email address to cast a vote. The deliberate choice of using a RIPE email implies a certain awareness of the influence it carries. This early vote, seemingly endorsed officially, subtly suggests a process that might appear, to the cautious observer, as conveniently arranged. When combined with the evolving narrative of whose votes count and whose don’t — as if the rules are being written and rewritten in real-time — it certainly raises eyebrows about the true consistency and impartiality of this process. In light of our commitment to transparency, I'm curious – will this vote be counted, or are we continuing to adapt the rules to fit the moment? In our dialogues, a recurrent issue is the cycle of new questions that emerge following my responses, often sidestepping the depth of the answers I've already provided. This pattern of continuously shifting focus hinders our ability to delve deeply and transparently into the core issues. Moreover, when discussions reach a significant point, they are frequently concluded with statements and conclusions like "you did not convince me," which serve more as conversation enders than as constructive contributions. Given this, will my points raised in the previous email be thoroughly addressed? The absence of a detailed response will be quite telling and, in itself, a significant answer, especially in light of the critical issues I have brought forward.To reiterate, my decision to participate in the voting was informed by a thorough understanding of RIPE, the Open Source Working Group, and the qualifications of all the candidates. I trust this message clarifies my position well.Considering the observations and discussions above, I am looking forward to your responses to these points, as well as to the unresolved topics I mentioned in my previous email. Clear answers to these concerns are to allow everyone within the community to contribute more effectively.Warm regards,Ines </div> <div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">uto, 19. pro 2023. u 22:06 Martin Winter <<a href="mailto:mwinter@netdef.org">mwinter@netdef.org</a>> napisao je: </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Ines, thanks for the introduction. However, I'm less concerned and about your professional background and was actually asking on how you found about the Open Source WG and the election going on. You mentioned that you know Luka and trust him, but do you know the other candidates? I'm concerned on people voting who did not take the time to look at all the candidates and just pick a local friend. So again, if you think we should count your particular vote, then please explain: - How did you learn about the chair selection process? After all, the email for the selection process was sent before you joined. - How did you decide that your choice is better than the other choices? After all you are new to this group and seem to be still confused about it. (I take this from the mention of the number of emails on the list. We mainly work on the meeting, so while it would be nice to have a more active list, our main charter isn't the list. Go and check out the RIPE websites for our mission on this (and other) WG And if you would have attended the past RIPE or listened to the recording, then you would probably better understand the selection process. And yes, things were not done perfectly and I currently plan to bring this up at the next WG meeting at the RIPE in spring 2024. Attend the meeting and join in on the discussion on how to make the selection better. Also keep in mind, this is a chail selection process. And myself and Marco (the existing chairs) did not publicly mention as I didn't want to set an example for others to follow or influence. And yes, my first choice didn't make it either. So far you did nothing to convince me - more to the opposite that I have the feeling you try to avoid the answers to the questions. But that's fair. And I don't expect you to open up to everyone, but you try to make a point that your vote should count and I still haven't heard an argument about why. But please stick around and join us at future RIPE meetings. You may learn how we may not have fixed rules, but we decide mostly on what is best for the community. (And you could learn why this helps) Regards, Martin Winter On Tue, Dec 19, 2023 at 2:17 PM Ines Skelac <<a href="mailto:ines.skelac@ffrz.hr" target="_blank">ines.skelac@ffrz.hr</a>> wrote: > > 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 <<a href="mailto:mwinter@netdef.org" target="_blank">mwinter@netdef.org</a>> 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 <<a href="mailto:ines.skelac@ffrz.hr" target="_blank">ines.skelac@ffrz.hr</a>> 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@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@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) >> >> <a href="mailto:ondrej@sury.org" target="_blank">ondrej@sury.org</a> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> opensource-wg mailing list >> >> <a href="mailto:opensource-wg@ripe.net" target="_blank">opensource-wg@ripe.net</a> >> >> <a href="https://mailman.ripe.net/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mailman.ripe.net/</a> >> >> >> >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: <a href="https://mailman.ripe.net/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mailman.ripe.net/</a> >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > opensource-wg mailing list >> > <a href="mailto:opensource-wg@ripe.net" target="_blank">opensource-wg@ripe.net</a> >> > <a href="https://mailman.ripe.net/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mailman.ripe.net/</a> >> > >> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: <a href="https://mailman.ripe.net/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mailman.ripe.net/</a> </blockquote></div> <div> </div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"></div></div></div>