<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252"> <meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"> <style></style> </head> <body lang="EN-IE" link="blue" vlink="purple" style="word-wrap:break-word"> <div class="WordSection1"> Aligning the criteria for both candidacy and voting seems sensible. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> I also agree that moving “quickly” isn’t ideal. Better to move slowly and avoid headaches. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Regards<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Michele<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> --<o:p></o:p> Mr Michele Neylon<o:p></o:p> Blacknight Solutions<o:p></o:p> Hosting, Colocation & Domains<o:p></o:p> <a href="https://www.blacknight.com/">https://www.blacknight.com/</a><o:p></o:p> <a href="https://blacknight.blog/">https://blacknight.blog/</a><o:p></o:p> Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072<o:p></o:p> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090<o:p></o:p> Personal blog: <a href="https://michele.blog/">https://michele.blog/</a><o:p></o:p> Some thoughts: <a href="https://ceo.hosting/">https://ceo.hosting/</a><o:p></o:p> -------------------------------<o:p></o:p> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> I have sent this email at a time that is convenient for me. I do not expect you to respond to it outside of your usual working hours.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <div id="mail-editor-reference-message-container"> <div> <div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm"> From: ripe-list <ripe-list-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of Leo Vegoda <leo@vegoda.org> Date: Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 16:16 To: Lars-Johan Liman <liman@netnod.se> Cc: RIPE List <ripe-list@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [ripe-list] Last Call for Draft: NRO NC Election Process (v3)<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Please use caution when opening attachments from unrecognised sources. Hi, I support Nurani's and Liman's suggestion that the qualification for candidacy should be the same as for voting. I also support moving more slowly. There was a time when this community moved fast. But that was when the Internet was transitioning from interesting to infrastructure. That transition has happened. The community of affected people is significantly larger, so optimising processes for transparency, as Liman suggests, is ideal. Thanks, Leo On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 at 05:21, Lars-Johan Liman <liman@netnod.se> wrote: > > Miriam, Nurani, > > Thanks to both of you for doing this imporant work. > > Regarding candidacy ... > > I think I'm on Nurani's side here. While I can see the logic behind that > such candidates wouldn't receive sufficient amounts of votes, that puts > a lot of trust in that all involved players play by the – unwritten – > rules of democracy. As too many recent examples have showed, a few also > among the RIR communities, that is not always the case. > > An unsuitable, unknowing, or naļve candidate can receive many votes by > (intentionally or unintentionally) overflowing the voter consituency > with false or misleading information, and also by not being true to > promises made as a nominee. To be able to take office without having > given the RIPE community a chance to meet and interact with a nominee > before they vote for her or him seems like something we don't want to > happen. By "forcing" a candidate to interact with the community before > standing for election, we give the community a small but important tool > that can mitigate this problem. > > Also, I don't want processes to be too quick. Quick processes give more > opportunities for "coups d'etat". I believe in processes that are slow, > balanced, and transparent, and I find that transparency increases when > processes are slow. > > I think requiring that a candidate attends a RIPE meeting or two before > being nominated to office is good and sound process. > > Like Nurani, I also see a conflict/asymmetry between requiring it for > voters but not for those who later get the power to make decisions on > behalf of the voters. > > Respectfully, > /Liman > > #---------------------------------------------------------------------- > # Lars-Johan Liman, M.Sc. ! E-mail: liman@netnod.se > # Senior Systems Specialist ! Tel: +46 8 - 562 860 12 > # Netnod AB, Stockholm ! <a href="http://www.netnod.se/">http://www.netnod.se/</a> > #---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > On 06/10/2023 14:05, Nurani Nimpuno wrote: > >> <SNIP> > >> Also, I think that if we agree that voting eligibility should be > >> having attended at least one RIPE meeting in the past, shouldn’t we > >> add this as a very bare minimum criterion for the candidate > >> eligibility as well? (I would in fact say “having attended at least > >> three previous RIPE meetings, but I don’t have strong opinions on > >> the exact number”.) > > mir@zu-hause.nl 2023-10-09 07:57 [+0000]: > > <SNIP> > > So far I believe the community felt that candidates who don't have the > > necessary skills and background will mostly likely not receive many > > votes. But let's see what others say. > > -- > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: <a href="https://mailman.ripe.net/">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/">https://mailman.ripe.net/</a><o:p></o:p> </div> </div> </div> </div> </body> </html>