RIPE Accountability Task Force Call Today, 2-3pm
Dear all, Just a reminder that our call will be from 2-3pm (UTC+1) today. You can find the call details here: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/accountability-tf/2017-February/0000... The proposed agenda and action items are below. Cheers Antony ### *Proposed Agenda* 1) Welcome, finalise agenda, adopt minutes 2) Reviewing Action Items 3) Agreement on Updated Scope 4) Task Force Membership/Mailing List Subscriptions 5) Agreement on Website Content 6) Timeline and Workplan 7) Scheduling Future TF Calls 8) Participation of Task Force Members *Action Items* 20171801-1: RIPE NCC to capture the wording of the TF’s comments on scope and produce an updated document to send to the mailing list. 20171801-2: RIPE NCC to come up with a draft timeline for the TF. 20171801-3: Filiz to start a discussion about transparency/web documentation on the mailing list. 20171801-4: Filiz to start a discussion regarding openness of TF calls on the mailing list. 20171801-5: RIPE NCC to make poll covering Feb, March, April, and one meeting before RIPE 74. The deadline for TF members to enter their preferences should be one week. 20171801-6: Filiz to start a discussion on the mailing list about how open the TF should be. 20163011-1: Task force members to each come up with a few topics they want the Task Force to address and share this on the mailing list. 20163011-2: The RIPE NCC to map out areas where accountability features are already.
Dear all, On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 10:46:09AM +0100, Antony Gollan wrote:
20163011-1: Task force members to each come up with a few topics they want the Task Force to address and share this on the mailing list.
one of the important tasks of the RIPE community is to set policy, mostly for the NCC to execute. Policy is guided by the PDP and steered by the chairs of the working groups concerned. The PDP itself and its implementation as well as the role of the chairs and their (s)election could be an item for this TF. The most recent changes in the DB WG as well as the heterogeneity of rules might serve as starting points. -Peter
On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Peter Koch <pk@denic.de> wrote:
Dear all,
On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 10:46:09AM +0100, Antony Gollan wrote:
20163011-1: Task force members to each come up with a few topics they want the Task Force to address and share this on the mailing list.
one of the important tasks of the RIPE community is to set policy, mostly for the NCC to execute. Policy is guided by the PDP and steered by the chairs of the working groups concerned.
Agreed. Looking into how PDP is used and the consistency of its application across RIPE fits into our scope, as well as explaining when and how not using the full PDP gets chosen, why imo. (S)election of WG Chairs and their terms, how TFs are called out, how WGs are accepted or closed, how meeting scheduling takes place are other topics we may want to look deeper too.
The PDP itself and its implementation as well as the role of the chairs and their (s)election could be an item for this TF.
Maybe I am mis-reading your suggestion but the implementation is done by the RIPE NCC. Do you mean we should also look into how the NCC implements a policy that is accepted by the Community?
The most recent changes in the DB WG as well as the heterogeneity of rules might serve as starting points.
Can you elaborate on this? What are these changes you are referring to in the DB WG? I have not followed this issue closely and maybe some others do not know about it either. Cheers Filiz
-Peter
On 6 February 2017 at 15:19, Filiz Yilmaz <koalafil@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Peter Koch <pk@denic.de> wrote:
Dear all,
On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 10:46:09AM +0100, Antony Gollan wrote:
20163011-1: Task force members to each come up with a few topics they want the Task Force to address and share this on the mailing list.
one of the important tasks of the RIPE community is to set policy, mostly for the NCC to execute. Policy is guided by the PDP and steered by the chairs of the working groups concerned.
Agreed. Looking into how PDP is used and the consistency of its application across RIPE fits into our scope, as well as explaining when and how not using the full PDP gets chosen, why imo.
I agree. The PDP is one of the most important bits. I have some times asked the question: We say the RIPE community is so much bigger than the RIPE NCC membership. But of you look at how many participate on the address-policy list it is a small fraction of the 15 000 members.
(S)election of WG Chairs and their terms, how TFs are called out, how WGs are accepted or closed, how meeting scheduling takes place are other topics we may want to look deeper too.
This is also important. and does it make sense to have different chair election procedures for each wg?
The PDP itself and its implementation as well as the role of the chairs and their (s)election could be an item for this TF.
Maybe I am mis-reading your suggestion but the implementation is done by the RIPE NCC. Do you mean we should also look into how the NCC implements a policy that is accepted by the Community?
The most recent changes in the DB WG as well as the heterogeneity of rules might serve as starting points.
Can you elaborate on this? What are these changes you are referring to in the DB WG? I have not followed this issue closely and maybe some others do not know about it either.
The selection process in itself had some surprising elements: - all chairs up for selection at the same time - unless a candidate stepped down it ended up with a draw from a hat. Does this give the WG the best qualified chairs? (you can also add some personal differences between the chairs/candidates/wg-members to the mix) You may want to review the process as well as the execution of the process in all the wg's to see if they are fit for purpose. -- Hans Petter Holen - hph@oslo.net - +47 45066054
On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 03:39:47PM +0100, Hans Petter Holen wrote:
and does it make sense to have different chair election procedures for each wg?
Now that the chairs' collective has a less operational role in the PDP ...
The selection process in itself had some surprising elements: - all chairs up for selection at the same time - unless a candidate stepped down it ended up with a draw from a hat.
adding to this, partly contradicting my earlier sentiment: the draw ended with the only running incumbent being 'out'. Sky hasn't fallen yet, though, IMHO. -Peter
All, Having been directly involved with the db-wg chair selection process (as one of the new co-chairs). All three chair terms expired annually in this recent rotation, two of the chairs expressed that they did not wish to continue as a chair. The resulting process did end in random selection from a hat. This process excluded the one chair who had served many terms. This led to no continuity across the chairs. Peter, I appreciate the vote of confidence that the sky hasn’t fallen yet in db-wg. :-) The point that the incumbent was out providing no continuity is a valid one. This process should be evaluated for the future. Another topic that I have found challenging is the idea of consensus. Something the database working group has struggled with are proposals that only a few people comment about. Establishing consensus with few participants is a challenge. This results in no progress moving forward. If several people agree on something with no objections, should that be consensus. I agree that consistency might be useful. William On 2/6/17, 9:55 AM, "accountability-tf on behalf of Peter Koch" <accountability-tf-bounces@ripe.net on behalf of pk@DENIC.DE> wrote: On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 03:39:47PM +0100, Hans Petter Holen wrote: > and does it make sense to have different chair election procedures for each > wg? Now that the chairs' collective has a less operational role in the PDP ... > The selection process in itself had some surprising elements: > - all chairs up for selection at the same time > - unless a candidate stepped down it ended up with a draw from a hat. adding to this, partly contradicting my earlier sentiment: the draw ended with the only running incumbent being 'out'. Sky hasn't fallen yet, though, IMHO. -Peter
Filiz, all, On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 03:19:05PM +0100, Filiz Yilmaz wrote:
Agreed. Looking into how PDP is used and the consistency of its application across RIPE fits into our scope, as well as explaining when and how not using the full PDP gets chosen, why imo.
thanks.
The PDP itself and its implementation as well as the role of the chairs and their (s)election could be an item for this TF.
Maybe I am mis-reading your suggestion but the implementation is done by the RIPE NCC. Do you mean we should also look into how the NCC implements a policy that is accepted by the Community?
What I meant was the particular "instance" of the PDP itself, not the result and the execution/application by the NCC.
The most recent changes in the DB WG as well as the heterogeneity of rules might serve as starting points.
Can you elaborate on this? What are these changes you are referring to in the DB WG? I have not followed this issue closely and maybe some others do not know about it either.
Not being flippant but only to avoid adding confusion by just paraphrasing, here's the summary <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2016-December/005480.html> One might want to read a bit up-/down-thread. Consensus building around personnel decisions (or general yes/no questions) might turn out to be difficult. Best, Peter
participants (5)
-
Antony Gollan -
Filiz Yilmaz -
Hans Petter Holen -
Peter Koch -
William Sylvester