Dear task force members, Now that we're in the new year, we are very keen to get the final steps of this accountability process finished. I should probably also add that this email is sent in coordination with William, who is busy with a meeting. Attached is an updated report (still a work in progress). Changes are tracked, but there's really only three main parts that we would like you to consider: - The section on RIPE Documents (page 16-19) has been updated based on Peter's comments from December[1]. - Last week, ripe-714, "The RIPE Chair" was published. This is essentially the role description that we were encouraging the community to finish in our recommendations. This affects the table (1.0 RIPE Chair), which starts on page 21. - Some changes to the recommendations (page 28) - but this may still change further. As we continue to finalise the document - we're wondering if you have any thoughts on the following points in particular: 1. Does the updated RIPE Document section address Peter's comments properly? Does it need any further changes? 2. Should we make changes based on Jim Reid's feedback? a) We are having trouble understanding how we could describe what each structure is accountable for beyond the various roles we have identified in the tables. We could make more high level comments - but to some extent this is already done in the introductions for each of the tables. b) We are not sure how to take his comment that recommending that the community consider a single WG Chair selection process is out of scope for the TF 3. The new RIPE Chair document seems problematic for the document in a couple of ways: a) We currently have a recommendation that the RIPE Chair should report back to the community on his activities - but the new document says "The RIPE chair reports their actions to the community as appropriate." Does this mean we should remove this recommendation? b) Most of the various roles of the RIPE Chair were identified as "Needs review" - primarily because there was only a draft document at the time. If this document has since reached consensus, does this mean by definition that it now "Meets expectations"? Or alternatively, should the task force take time to consider these? If possible, we would like any comments by the end of next week (1 February). We can also arrange a call if there is interest in doing so. We would like to get this wrapped up soon if possible - but the emphasis should be on getting it right. Emails for reference: [1] Peter's comments: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/accountability-tf/2018-December/0002... [2] Jim's original email: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ripe-list/2018-November/001460.html [3] Jim's second email: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ripe-list/2018-December/001475.html Cheers Antony