[ripe-list] LAST CALL EXTENDED to 18 Feb: Draft Document: RIPE Task Forces - Definition and Guidelines

Hi Niall, all,

I don't think it must be the RIPE Chair the one defining Rationale, Charter, etc. It must be a community consensus decision. Otherwise, we may be in a situation where those definitions don't align with the community wishes or perceived needs.

There should be a draft document for all those definitions, and at least a one month call for consensus on that.

Alternatively, there must be a way for the Task Force members to consult the community and get consensus on a review on that, shortly after the TF work is started.

The appointment section is absolutely discriminatory. Nobody in the community has more rights than others. There is no way the participation from anyone can be restricted and that means that nobody can "appoint" members. This is clearly prone to manipulation, appointing "friends" or people with a well-known position, etc. I agree that expertise in some topics may be key, but not in all the cases. Willingness to devote time in the effort can be, and usually is, more important. In some other cases it is not about expertise, but diversity of language, cultures, etc.

I agree that usually a small group works better, but it is clear that you will never get, making an open call, a big number of active participants (which is already somehow restricted by the responsibilities section). It never happens and if it happens that's good even if it means a slower process.

We have been there already, I was discriminated (which will be illegal in most of the EU countries) in the CoC TF and I'm still waiting for a formal disclosure of the discussion on that, reasons, etc. I hope you provide it at some point (many months since I asked the first time), otherwise we can't anymore sustain that this is a bottom-up based, transparent community and clean consensus process.

In fact, I publicly call the RIPE trusted contacts to make sure that all the relevant information for that case is disclosed. I asked for that and never happened.

Regarding the no need for consensus in the TF. How we can do that? If we don't call for consensus withing the TF, the reports should make clear the different views, for the community to evaluate all them.

There should be also a clear pre-defined timing for the TF recommendations to be called for consensus in the community.
 
Finally, I think it must be possible, in order for transparency, that anyone joins the conference calls, meetings, or whatever the TF needs to do the job, as observer.
 
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
 
 

El 3/2/22 13:08, "ripe-list en nombre de Niall O'Reilly" <ripe-list-bounces at ripe.net en nombre de niall.oreilly at ucd.ie> escribió:

    Dear colleagues,

    I believed I had sent this message to you all on 21 January, but 
    discovered only today
    that I had picked the wrong recipient, from the list of those beginning 
    with “RIPE”
    which my mail app presented.

    At that time, Mirjam and I felt that a two-week extension to the last 
    call would be
    appropriate, as the suggestions received in advance of the original 
    deadline
    appeared uncontroversial, but ought of course to be subject to community 
    review.

    This extension would have expired tomorrow.
    This would clearly be unreasonable, so we have set 18 February 2022 as 
    the new deadline,

    Please accept my apologies for my mistake.

    On 16 Dec 2021, at 15:21, I (Niall O'Reilly) wrote:

    > On 19 Nov 2021, at 8:48, Mirjam Kuehne wrote:
    >
    > Based on experiences and feedback received from existing Task Forces 
    > and
    > other community members, we put together a document describing what a
    > RIPE Task Force is and how it usually operates:
    >
    > https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-documents/other-documents/ripe-task-forces-definition-and-guidelines/
    >
    > Please let us know if you have any questions or suggestions. This will
    > be published as a RIPE Document.
    >
    > Mirjam and I have updated our draft in line with the suggestions we 
    > received.
    > The new version has been placed at 
    > https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-documents/other-documents/ripe-task-forces-definition-and-guidelines.
    >
    > We consider that it is now time to make a LAST CALL for further 
    > comment,
    > with a deadline of 17:00 UTC on Friday, 14 January 2022.
    >
    > Shortly after this deadline, we plan to declare that this document has
    > Community Consensus and to arrange for its publication as a RIPE 
    > Document.

    We have updated the text to take account of some suggestions received
    during the last call period, and are therefore extending the last call
    period until 17:00 UTC on Friday, 18 (not 4) February 2022 to allow 
    comment
    on the latest changes only.

    Updated draft: 
    https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-documents/other-documents/ripe-task-forces-definition-and-guidelines
    Tracked changed (PDF): 
    https://www.ripe.net/resolveuid/4ce5895954d249f59bbb5aaa9f71a421

    Thanks to Cynthia Revström and Randy Bush for their helpful 
    suggestions,
    and to Boris Duval of the RIPE NCC for preparing the updated document.

    Best regards,

    Niall O’Reilly
    RIPE Vice-Chair

    -- 

    To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/



**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.