[ripe-list] ripe-list Digest, Vol 139, Issue 10

Hi guys

Maybe a middle ground is worth considering. Where a working group has
2 or 3 co-chairs, perhaps allow RIPE NCC staff to take chair positions
but not allow them to be in a majority. That allows a WG to benefit
from the deep understanding of RIPE NCC staff, who work full time
around many of the issues under consideration, without the RIPE NCC
being 'seen' as in control.

Whilst this is an interesting theoretical discussion, let's have an
injection of the unspoken reality. There are many issues here that few
will speak of. Having had one foot in both these camps, let me speak
up on behalf of those with no voice. We all live in multiple
hierarchies of power and control. Corporate life is just one of them.
The RIPE NCC is a corporate body. It has a board, a management
hierarchy and a hierarchy of workers. Whilst the RIPE NCC acts as an
executive body or secretariat for the loosely defined and very public
RIPE community, everyone associated with the RIPE NCC is still subject
to the norms of corporate life. WE, as part of the community, are
discussing how staff members 'can and should' (words taken from the
document)  be able to interact with this community. It is notable that
no staff member has joined this discussion. Whilst WE are discussing
how staff members 'can and should' be able to get heavily involved in
policy discussions, maybe staff don't feel able to even join the
discussion on the discussion. Regardless of the connection between the
RIPE NCC and the RIPE community, as a corporate body the RIPE NCC has
corporate policy, strategy, rules, discipline and internal ways of
working. All of this covers how the RIPE NCC, as a company and
secretariat with staff, interacts with the, often difficult to
identify, RIPE community. It says in this draft document "In addition
to that, the RIPE NCC may have more detailed internal guidelines for
staff participation in the RIPE community and other community work."
Unless those guidelines are published in full, as a RIPE NCC
procedural document, whatever this draft document says is meaningless
as it can all be overruled by these internal guidelines.

If the RIPE community is going to define how the RIPE NCC should (be
able to) interact with the RIPE community then there must also be a
condition that no RIPE NCC staff member should be put under any
pressure internally to either be or not be a co-chair of a particular
working group. We must also offer 'protected rights' of staff to
comment freely in a discussion on a working group mailing list if we
want them to act as full members of the community. Obviously they must
not disclose any confidential internal information. But they should be
allowed to comment freely, expressing their own opinion, in a
professional manner, EVEN if that goes against the RIPE NCC company
policy. No staff member should be internally disciplined if their
public opinion contradicts that of perhaps a more senior member of
staff. It is good to have this open discussion, but you must also
accept that many staff members will never comment on any mailing list
discussion because of the fear of an internal backlash. I was a staff
member and I know what can happen if you say the wrong thing in
public. I once said something in a presentation at a RIPE Meeting. It
had been approved by my manager but left another manager very angry.
The immediate and very public consequence of that literally left me in
tears at that meeting. Some people who saw me may remember it. The
follow up internally was not pleasant either. (Just for clarity, it
was a long time ago and all concerned parties have since left the RIPE
NCC.)

So if we want staff to have this level of involvement with the
community then we MUST have a clear buy-in from the senior management
team at the RIPE NCC and from the OR (staff workers association).
There must be safeguards put in place to protect staff from freedom of
speech issues, even if what they say goes against company policy or
the plans of any manager. It is not enough to have Hans Petter as a
co-author of this document.  Anything agreed here can be overruled by
the "more detailed internal guidelines for staff participation". In
any corporate body, staff know that to keep your job means to keep
your mouth shut, never say anything contentious and don't rock the
boat. As a retired professional I argue passionately for or against
issues on any WG mailing list. I say what I believe to be right,
professionally and without any malice. No staff member at the RIPE NCC
is ever going to say many of the things I say. Even with safeguards it
is not worth the risk. This is an interesting discussion, but don't
have too much expectation on the outcome. People are human, they have
feelings and fears.

Now I would also like to extend this discussion in another direction.
Whistle blowing. I am NOT for one moment suggesting there are
currently any whistles to blow at the RIPE NCC. But who knows what the
future holds. If a member of staff is aware of something wrong,
whatever it may be, and they feel strongly that the community should
be aware of it, can we have a way for them to anonymously raise the
issue?

Plenty of food for thought...

cheers
denis


> From: Nigel Titley <nigel at titley.com>
> To: Joe Abley <jabley at strandkip.nl>, ripe-list at ripe.net
> Cc:
> Bcc:
> Date: Thu, 11 May 2023 15:01:40 +0100
> Subject: Re: [ripe-list] ripe-list Digest, Vol 139, Issue 9
>
>
> On 11/05/2023 14:51, Joe Abley wrote:
>
> > Following on from my previous comment, I think it would be better to
> > focus on avoiding *actual* conflicts of interest. I think worrying
> > about appearances is what happens when there is a lack of understanding
> > of the substance and, in the case of managing a useful and
> > productive collaboration between the community and
> > NCC-as-secretariat,the substance seems important.
> >
> > If the goal is to avoid a need for understanding, then it seems like the
> > natural solution is that NCC staff should never be allowed to
> > participate as members of the community at all. I don't think that is
> > necessary or desirable.
>
> If we had a perfect world then I'd agree with you. However I've been in
> this business long enough to know that if there is a faintest chance of
> a possible thought of a conflict then someone will complain.
>
> However, I'm not part of this community any longer in any real sense,
> and if people think this isn't important then go for it.
>
> Nigel
>