Good Morning fellow TF members,
You can find the latest version of the document here: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/accountability- tf/2017-April/000082.html
thanks to the NCC for keeping this list continuously updated! I had already mentioned during one of the calls that I feel it is important to not only judge based on the formal paper situation (as in: is a process documented?) but also assess the way the processes are "lived" and whether they follow the spirit and/or the letter of a documented process (or one of the 'unwritten ruels'). I stumbled acroos 2.3, suggesting that WG chairs "Announce final best practice documents (or other output) created by WGs". My recollection was that we had always sought an endorsement by the Friday plenary, but that might have been done dfferently over time and across WGs. This leads to a broader question of what the process for RIPE document publication, review, status classification (including obsoletion) is. This might need an addition to section 9. I'd really like the TF to have a closer look at the "WG chair selection process" and the qpplicability of "consensus process" to questions of personnel appointment as well as the PDP, especially the role of the proposer during the PDP (can drop the ball and process restarts), the applicability of the PDP to the PDP, the appropriateness of the WG centric approach for cross WG issues (visibility, transparency, and widest clueful contributuon). Also, the "+1" "consensus building" could benefit from a critical review. Regards, Peter