Hi all,
One of the action items from our last call was for the RIPE NCC to
update the draft scope. Please find an updated version with a couple of
small changes, based on your comments. I have also included the comments
I was working from below for reference.
A couple of questions:
- Several people mentioned defining relevant stakeholders. Is this
something to include in the scope, or perhaps in a new section
underneath this?
- William mentioned the development of a scorecard or other reporting
tool - should this be mentioned in the scope or at a later stage in the
deliverables?
- Nurani mentioned including a note that a full accountability review
should include a review of the RIPE NCC and its board, conducted by the
membership/secretariat. Is the scope the right place to mention this?
Please let me know your thoughts and any changes or revisions you would
like made.
Cheers
Antony
###
Updated Scope:
The RIPE Accountability Task Force agreed to:
* Review existing RIPE community structures, documentation and
processes to ensure they are accountable and in alignment with RIPE
values
* Document existing RIPE community structures or processes where needed
* Identify potential gaps where RIPE accountability could be improved
or strengthened
* Develop recommendations for the RIPE community
* Identify areas where communications efforts might be required and
develop communications materials
The scope of the task force is limited to an examination of the RIPE
community and does not include the RIPE NCC.
Original Scope:
The RIPE Accountability Task Force agreed to:
* Undertake a review of existing RIPE community structures,
documentation and processes to ensure they provide adequate
accountability that is in alignment with RIPE values
* Identify potential gaps where RIPE accountability could be improved
or strengthened
* Document existing RIPE community structures or processes where needed
* Develop recommendations for the RIPE community
* Identify areas where communications efforts might be required and
develop communications materials
Relevant comments from last TF call (some of these are paraphrased).
"William said they should identify the various groups involved and
determine what kind of accountability they had to these groups. Then
they could publish some kind of ongoing status or scorecard with how
they were doing in terms of accountability."
Steve: “[…] the process began with identifying what structuresthey
intended to look at. He said it was the accountability of each
RIPEcommunity structure.”
Hans Petter: “…a useful scope restriction was to focus on RIPE. […]He
wasn’t sure what theymeant by “community structures”, but he thought
they were talking aboutthe RIPE community which consisted of Working
Groups, Task Forces,Mailing Lists, etc. He thought this was what they
needed to look at."
Alexander: “Define the RIPE community before addressing accountablity
questions.”
Nurani: "...the work should focus on the RIPE community and its
mechanisms and they needed to be clear about not mixing up membership
processes and community powers. [...] Long-term accountability work
would not be complete without looking at the whole structure, including
the RIPE NCC’s membership and its board. This was probably something
that needed to be done in future work [...] by the membership and the
secretariat. So maybe they could proceed with a note that a full
accountability review would include a review of/by the membership and
secretariat. "
Peter: He said they should be clear on where they were talking about
RIPE andwhere they were talking about the RIPE NCC. This needed to be
especiallyclear for readers. The RIPE and RIPE NCC interaction came
after they hadreviewed the structures. He suggested bringing the third
bullet-point up[“Document existing RIPE community structures or
processes whereneeded”], which would include things like the process for
selecting WGChairs.
"Filiz said they seemed to be leaning towards a scope that the TF would
study the existing and future stakeholders within the RIPE community.
The other option would be to create another "stakeholders" section below
the scope where they could list who they thought this work would be
relating to."
