<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">Excellent write-up and line of thought. I would love to see NCC staff and (senior) management respond to this discussion as well as indeed we are discussing "how staff members 'can and should' be able to get heavily involved".</div><div dir="ltr"> </div><div>+1 on the finding middle ground </div> <div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, May 13, 2023 at 11:03 AM denis walker <<a href="mailto:ripedenis@gmail.com">ripedenis@gmail.com</a>> wrote: </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">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 <<a href="mailto:nigel@titley.com" target="_blank">nigel@titley.com</a>> > To: Joe Abley <<a href="mailto:jabley@strandkip.nl" target="_blank">jabley@strandkip.nl</a>>, <a href="mailto:ripe-list@ripe.net" target="_blank">ripe-list@ripe.net</a> > 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 > -- 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>