Hi Sylvain You seem to think there is some issue here of going against some consensus or being disruptive. This is not the case. The simple fact is, with so many topics on this mailing list, there is NO discussion. If there is NO discussion there can be NO consensus. That is the basis of this old fashioned, tried and tested, well documented, not to be deviated from process...that often completely fails. I have always made it clear that, even as a co-chair, I will express my own opinions in order to drive discussion so that a consensus is possible. The other chairs (previously the other chair) will determine consensus. In many cases that is the only way to get anything done. If anyone has any ideas how we can get the community involvement on many database issues up to 5 or more people in a discussion (which would be an amazing achievement) I would be very interested to hear your thoughts. cheers denis co-chair DB-WG On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 at 00:19, Sylvain Baya <abscoco@gmail.com> wrote:
{change the topic. focus: basic tasks} Dear RIPE DB-WG, Hope this email finds you in good health. Please see my comments below inline... Thanks.
Le mercredi 19 juillet 2023, denis walker via db-wg <db-wg@ripe.net> a écrit :
Colleagues
One or two vocal members of this community frequently express their opinion that all WG chairs should sit silently in the background, post an occasional review and wait to declare consensus or not.
Hi Denis, Thanks for your email, brother.
...you seem to disagree with the WG consensus :-) or it's just with those few "vocal" WG participants?
Do seek, first, if there is any rough consensus, or not, please. Is there actually any consensus on the matter?
I am always willing to try out ideas from the community.
That's not part of the tasks of Co-Chairs, imho :-/ ...i may be wrong, though.
Again! you *must* ask to the WG participants if they are ok with that idea, first...prior to engage on disruptive behavior.
So for the last couple of months, since RIPE 86, I have stayed silent on DB matters.
Please, it's not about you, brother.
If you push back to the WG, you would be less concerned about your WG participant's opinions.
In what, as a Co-chair, shall you be concerned about your WG's participant opinions? Please think of it twice, brother...if you care much; then how could you act fairly? or in other words: Do you expect your WG participants to hope to get a fair process, at end?
How has the conversation been on NWIs?
Which one? Is it into the Co-chair's tasks list to follow-up on the active NWIs progress?
Oh there hasn't been any.
This WG have three Co-chairs, may i suggest to our Co-chairs to:
1] organise their team; 2] identify their *willing* regular tasks list; 3] discuss it with the DB-WG; 4] distribute the resulting regular tasks list amongst them (Co-chairs) 5] bind on that.
How have they progressed beyond some steps already in progress? Oh there hasn't been any. Are we any closer to completing action on most NWIs? Er no we aren't.
Please, do not justify a disruptive behavior by stats poured like that. It *should* not work that way, brother:
1| remove your hat first 2| voice your personal opinion 3| wait the other Co-chairs to seek any consensus 4| put back your Co-chair's hat 5| and go ahead.
That's, imho, what Randy is trying to recommend, if i got it well.
So I think it is fair to say this is not an appropriate way of working with some WGs these days.
The DB-WG may be an exception, but how to deal with that difference?
Revisit the Co-chair's tasks list? What else?
I will now go back to my previous way of working where, as a co-chair, I do have an agenda - to get things done,
Please read my previous comments :-)
Yes to "Get Things Done"!
No to handle "Things" without rough consensus! Yes to do any-"Thing " with "no hat"!
for the good of the internet.
We have already experienced that before and we know that the "good of the Internet" is a matter of collaborative engagement of any stakeholders available.
...but! don't get me wrong, please: i have no doubt on your sincerity or capacity to act as fairly as it would be possible.
Note that those who would come after you would also benefit to whatever disruption we would have agreed on now. Imagine, then, some really bad actor with own hidden *agenda* taking the position after you...what would be the safeguards?
...i stop here, while thinking to have said enough on this topic.
By the way! i personally appreciate the fondamental values and expertise of Denis and i hope we would be able to get more benefit on his presence on this WG.
Shalom, --sb.
Whether you consider that a 'personal' or 'professional' or 'DB' agenda is up to you. Just to be clear, this is not the same as for the good of 'operators'. There are many stakeholder groups in this community now. We are no longer just 'the operator community' or even 'the technical community'.
So I will continue to engage with the community, push out ideas (even crazy ideas sometimes), start and drive conversations until we get resolutions. Incidentally, this quiet period since RIPE 86 does remind us how busy you all are and how difficult it is for you to find the time to get so involved with the fine detail of small technical and operational changes to the RIPE Database. Which does fit with the presentation I did at RIPE 86 on how to manage the RIPE Database. I will come back to that shortly.
cheers denis co-chair DB-WG
-- [...]
--
Best Regards ! __ baya.sylvain[AT cmNOG DOT cm]|<https://cmnog.cm/dokuwiki/Structure> Subscribe to Mailing List: <https://lists.cmnog.cm/mailman/listinfo/cmnog/> __ #LASAINTEBIBLE|#Romains15:33«Que LE #DIEU de #Paix soit avec vous tous! #Amen!» #MaPrière est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement «Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme soupire après TOI, ô DIEU!»(#Psaumes42:2)