Proposal for new charter
All, At the RIPE meeting in Lisbon, I agreed to draft a proposed new charter for the IPv6 working group. Here it is: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- IPv6 is the next-generation IP protocol. The IPv6 working group exists to further IPv6 adoption. The working group activities may be anything useful in helping people deploy IPv6. These activities include: * Outreach * Co-operation * Education The IPv4 Internet will continue for a long time. The IPv6 working group is also concerned with IPv4/IPv6 co-existence. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Please use this mailing list for discussion. We would like to have a new charter in place before the next RIPE meeting. How this proposed charter was made: I looked at all of the other RIPE charters, and decided I wanted to keep this short and simple. I had a lunch meeting with David Kessens, Denesh Bhabuta, Carlos Friacas, Marco Hogewoning, Bernard Tuy, Lance Wright, and Jan Zorz. We discussed the new charter, although the above text has not been reviewed by them or anyone else. I thank them all! For those interested, here are some thoughts that went into the proposed charter: Background ---------- The current IPv6 working group charter is out-of-date: The IPv6 working group follows the progress of specification and implementation of the new IP version. It coordinates implementations in Europe and is going to create testbeds. It comes from a time when IPv6 was immature; the focus was keeping track of technological advances and working on experimental networks. That time is over, and the IPv6 working group needs an updated charter. Goal ---- The goal of creating a new charter is to do more than simply to update the text. We have almost finished allocating all IPv4 addresses. IPv6 is still only used by a small fraction of network traffic, many devices do not support IPv6 at all, and most organizations have no plans for IPv6 adoption. RIPE is a unique community, and should do what it can to help make the migration to IPv6 as easy as possible. A new charter is just the first step. Commentary ---------- The proposed new charter lists some activities: * Outreach * Co-operation * Education Outreach involves getting people, organisations, and groups to begin or continue IPv6 adoption. This includes vendors, governments, and developers. It also includes groups which are traditionally unrepresented, like gamers or content creators. Outreach means both going to other venues and inviting people from outside the RIPE community to visiting RIPE activities. Co-operation is working within the networking industry and without, to share resources and combine efforts. There are a large number of organisations and projects, and we should work with them whenever possible, so that IPv6 can fit in with their goals. This also includes co-operation with the many IPv6 efforts that exist worldwide. Education means all methods of increasing IPv6 knowledge. Note that the RIPE NCC is not able to do very much in terms of education, since it cannot compete with its members. However, the RIPE IPv6 working group can and should educate. -- Shane
On 16.10.09 22:36, Shane Kerr wrote:
All,
At the RIPE meeting in Lisbon, I agreed to draft a proposed new charter for the IPv6 working group. Here it is:
---------------------------------------------------------------------- IPv6 is the next-generation IP protocol. The IPv6 working group exists to further IPv6 adoption.
The working group activities may be anything useful in helping people deploy IPv6. These activities include:
* Outreach * Co-operation * Education
The IPv4 Internet will continue for a long time. The IPv6 working group is also concerned with IPv4/IPv6 co-existence. -----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree. Maybe we can also add "provide guidance for governments and regulators". Jan Zorz
Hi Jan,
Maybe we can also add "provide guidance for governments and regulators".
I think that is already covered by 'outreach'. Sander
Hi Shane,
---------------------------------------------------------------------- IPv6 is the next-generation IP protocol. The IPv6 working group exists to further IPv6 adoption.
The working group activities may be anything useful in helping people deploy IPv6. These activities include:
* Outreach * Co-operation * Education
The IPv4 Internet will continue for a long time. The IPv6 working group is also concerned with IPv4/IPv6 co-existence. -----------------------------------------------------------------------
I like it. One thing: The 'is also concerned with IPv4/IPv6 co- existence' part sounds a bit like an afterthought while it is probably the most difficult issue when deploying IPv6. What do you think of this: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- IPv6 is the next-generation IP protocol. The IPv6 working group exists to further IPv6 adoption. The working group activities may be anything useful in helping people deploy IPv6 and deal with IPv4/IPv6 co-existence. These activities include: * Outreach * Co-operation * Education ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Although 'deal with' is probably not the right way to say it. Sander
One thing: The 'is also concerned with IPv4/IPv6 co-existence' part sounds a bit like an afterthought while it is probably the most difficult issue when deploying IPv6.
Agree. I was kind of surprised on some small evidence of resistance to "coexistance" focus within the re-chartering group. /jan P.S: Shane, told ya :)
Hi, Thus wrote Sander Steffann (sander@steffann.nl):
---------------------------------------------------------------------- IPv6 is the next-generation IP protocol. The IPv6 working group exists to further IPv6 adoption.
The working group activities may be anything useful in helping people deploy IPv6 and deal with IPv4/IPv6 co-existence. These activities include:
* Outreach * Co-operation * Education -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Although 'deal with' is probably not the right way to say it.
s/deal with/handle/ or s/deal with/manage/ ? I'm missing a point on "swapping (painful) lessons learned" although that could possibly be seen under education. To me, the latter point tastes a bit too much of "we know the answers, here's the FAQ" to cover that. regards, spz -- spz@serpens.de (S.P.Zeidler)
--------------------------------------------------------------------- IPv6 is the next-generation IP protocol. The IPv6 working group exists to further IPv6 adoption.
The working group activities may be anything useful in helping people deploy IPv6 and deal with IPv4/IPv6 co-existence. These activities include:
* Outreach * Co-operation * Education ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Sounds good, although I would suggest changing the first 'further' to 'promote' and Replace 'deal with' with 'further' to create.
IPv6 is the next-generation IP protocol. The IPv6 working group exists to promote IPv6 adoption.
The working group activities may be anything useful in helping people deploy IPv6 and further IPv4/IPv6 co-existence. These activities include:
* Outreach * Co-operation * Education
/Anders
I like the proposed charter, with Sander's suggested amendment. I welcome the renewed interest and willingness to do things as exemplified by Shane's initiative, of which I would have liked to see more of in the recent past. Also, as consequence of the above, I would like to use this email to suggest to fellow wg participants that Shane be put forward as co- chair (if he is willing, I haven't asked) and bring in regenerative energy. Joao On 16 Oct 2009, at 22:36, Shane Kerr wrote:
All,
At the RIPE meeting in Lisbon, I agreed to draft a proposed new charter for the IPv6 working group. Here it is:
---------------------------------------------------------------------- IPv6 is the next-generation IP protocol. The IPv6 working group exists to further IPv6 adoption.
The working group activities may be anything useful in helping people deploy IPv6. These activities include:
* Outreach * Co-operation * Education
The IPv4 Internet will continue for a long time. The IPv6 working group is also concerned with IPv4/IPv6 co-existence. -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this mailing list for discussion.
We would like to have a new charter in place before the next RIPE meeting.
How this proposed charter was made:
I looked at all of the other RIPE charters, and decided I wanted to keep this short and simple.
I had a lunch meeting with David Kessens, Denesh Bhabuta, Carlos Friacas, Marco Hogewoning, Bernard Tuy, Lance Wright, and Jan Zorz. We discussed the new charter, although the above text has not been reviewed by them or anyone else. I thank them all!
For those interested, here are some thoughts that went into the proposed charter:
Background ---------- The current IPv6 working group charter is out-of-date:
The IPv6 working group follows the progress of specification and implementation of the new IP version. It coordinates implementations in Europe and is going to create testbeds.
It comes from a time when IPv6 was immature; the focus was keeping track of technological advances and working on experimental networks. That time is over, and the IPv6 working group needs an updated charter.
Goal ---- The goal of creating a new charter is to do more than simply to update the text.
We have almost finished allocating all IPv4 addresses. IPv6 is still only used by a small fraction of network traffic, many devices do not support IPv6 at all, and most organizations have no plans for IPv6 adoption.
RIPE is a unique community, and should do what it can to help make the migration to IPv6 as easy as possible. A new charter is just the first step.
Commentary ---------- The proposed new charter lists some activities:
* Outreach * Co-operation * Education
Outreach involves getting people, organisations, and groups to begin or continue IPv6 adoption. This includes vendors, governments, and developers. It also includes groups which are traditionally unrepresented, like gamers or content creators. Outreach means both going to other venues and inviting people from outside the RIPE community to visiting RIPE activities.
Co-operation is working within the networking industry and without, to share resources and combine efforts. There are a large number of organisations and projects, and we should work with them whenever possible, so that IPv6 can fit in with their goals. This also includes co-operation with the many IPv6 efforts that exist worldwide.
Education means all methods of increasing IPv6 knowledge. Note that the RIPE NCC is not able to do very much in terms of education, since it cannot compete with its members. However, the RIPE IPv6 working group can and should educate.
-- Shane
On Oct 17, 2009, at 5:06 PM, joao damas wrote:
I like the proposed charter, with Sander's suggested amendment.
I welcome the renewed interest and willingness to do things as exemplified by Shane's initiative, of which I would have liked to see more of in the recent past.
Indeed, I think the change Sander proposes makes sense and I would like to voice support for the new charter. MarcoH
Marco Hogewoning wrote:
On Oct 17, 2009, at 5:06 PM, joao damas wrote:
I like the proposed charter, with Sander's suggested amendment.
I welcome the renewed interest and willingness to do things as exemplified by Shane's initiative, of which I would have liked to see more of in the recent past.
Indeed, I think the change Sander proposes makes sense and I would like to voice support for the new charter.
i support the new charter, too. It makes sense to me and it's the direction where i'd like the IPv6-WG to go. -- ======================================================================== = Sascha Lenz SLZ-RIPE slz@baycix.de = = Network Design & Operations = = BayCIX GmbH, Landshut * PGP public Key on demand * = ========================================================================
Sascha Lenz schrieb:
Marco Hogewoning wrote:
On Oct 17, 2009, at 5:06 PM, joao damas wrote:
I like the proposed charter, with Sander's suggested amendment.
I welcome the renewed interest and willingness to do things as exemplified by Shane's initiative, of which I would have liked to see more of in the recent past.
Indeed, I think the change Sander proposes makes sense and I would like to voice support for the new charter.
i support the new charter, too. It makes sense to me and it's the direction where i'd like the IPv6-WG to go.
I also agree to the new charter with Sander's proposed changes included. Cheers, j. -- NCC09 - Netart Community Convention 2009 What the net! 23.11.09 - 29.11.09 Graz/Austria https://wiki.mur.at/ncc09/
On Sun, 18 Oct 2009, Sascha Lenz wrote:
Marco Hogewoning wrote:
On Oct 17, 2009, at 5:06 PM, joao damas wrote:
I like the proposed charter, with Sander's suggested amendment.
I welcome the renewed interest and willingness to do things as exemplified by Shane's initiative, of which I would have liked to see more of in the recent past.
Indeed, I think the change Sander proposes makes sense and I would like to voice support for the new charter.
i support the new charter, too. It makes sense to me and it's the direction where i'd like the IPv6-WG to go.
-- ======================================================================== = Sascha Lenz SLZ-RIPE slz@baycix.de = = Network Design & Operations = = BayCIX GmbH, Landshut * PGP public Key on demand * = ========================================================================
Hello, I also agree with the proposed new charter, and Sander's suggestion. I would also like to thank Shane, and i also support his co-chair nomination. Regards, Carlos
Carlos Friacas said the following on 22/10/09 17:05 :
I also agree with the proposed new charter, and Sander's suggestion.
I would also like to thank Shane, and i also support his co-chair nomination.
It's bad form to say "me too", but I'm going to say "me too". Thanks Shane, a great initiative. philip --
Also, as consequence of the above, I would like to use this email to suggest to fellow wg participants that Shane be put forward as co-chair (if he is willing, I haven't asked) and bring in regenerative energy.
Joao
Agree 100%. But, let's reach the consensus here and recharter the WG first. Jan Zorz
Hi Joao,
Also, as consequence of the above, I would like to use this email to suggest to fellow wg participants that Shane be put forward as co- chair (if he is willing, I haven't asked) and bring in regenerative energy.
Good idea, if Shane wants to take that responsibility of course :) Sander
I strongly support Shane proposal with Sander 's proposals and prefer clear defition of WG chapter. I think we should take more attention to IPv4/IPv6 coexistance - imwo - it is a real challenge Dima joao damas wrote:
I like the proposed charter, with Sander's suggested amendment.
I welcome the renewed interest and willingness to do things as exemplified by Shane's initiative, of which I would have liked to see more of in the recent past.
Also, as consequence of the above, I would like to use this email to suggest to fellow wg participants that Shane be put forward as co-chair (if he is willing, I haven't asked) and bring in regenerative energy.
Joao
On 16 Oct 2009, at 22:36, Shane Kerr wrote:
All,
At the RIPE meeting in Lisbon, I agreed to draft a proposed new charter for the IPv6 working group. Here it is:
---------------------------------------------------------------------- IPv6 is the next-generation IP protocol. The IPv6 working group exists to further IPv6 adoption.
The working group activities may be anything useful in helping people deploy IPv6. These activities include:
* Outreach * Co-operation * Education
The IPv4 Internet will continue for a long time. The IPv6 working group is also concerned with IPv4/IPv6 co-existence. -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this mailing list for discussion.
We would like to have a new charter in place before the next RIPE meeting.
How this proposed charter was made:
I looked at all of the other RIPE charters, and decided I wanted to keep this short and simple.
I had a lunch meeting with David Kessens, Denesh Bhabuta, Carlos Friacas, Marco Hogewoning, Bernard Tuy, Lance Wright, and Jan Zorz. We discussed the new charter, although the above text has not been reviewed by them or anyone else. I thank them all!
For those interested, here are some thoughts that went into the proposed charter:
Background ---------- The current IPv6 working group charter is out-of-date:
The IPv6 working group follows the progress of specification and implementation of the new IP version. It coordinates implementations in Europe and is going to create testbeds.
It comes from a time when IPv6 was immature; the focus was keeping track of technological advances and working on experimental networks. That time is over, and the IPv6 working group needs an updated charter.
Goal ---- The goal of creating a new charter is to do more than simply to update the text.
We have almost finished allocating all IPv4 addresses. IPv6 is still only used by a small fraction of network traffic, many devices do not support IPv6 at all, and most organizations have no plans for IPv6 adoption.
RIPE is a unique community, and should do what it can to help make the migration to IPv6 as easy as possible. A new charter is just the first step.
Commentary ---------- The proposed new charter lists some activities:
* Outreach * Co-operation * Education
Outreach involves getting people, organisations, and groups to begin or continue IPv6 adoption. This includes vendors, governments, and developers. It also includes groups which are traditionally unrepresented, like gamers or content creators. Outreach means both going to other venues and inviting people from outside the RIPE community to visiting RIPE activities.
Co-operation is working within the networking industry and without, to share resources and combine efforts. There are a large number of organisations and projects, and we should work with them whenever possible, so that IPv6 can fit in with their goals. This also includes co-operation with the many IPv6 efforts that exist worldwide.
Education means all methods of increasing IPv6 knowledge. Note that the RIPE NCC is not able to do very much in terms of education, since it cannot compete with its members. However, the RIPE IPv6 working group can and should educate.
-- Shane
I also strongly agree with that and prefer Jan's vote for "manage". On 18.10.2009, at 18:14, Dmitry Burkov wrote:
I strongly support Shane proposal with Sander 's proposals and prefer clear defition of WG chapter.
I think we should take more attention to IPv4/IPv6 coexistance - imwo - it is a real challenge
Dima
Regards, Matjaž Straus
As all the of the previous repliers, I agree also that the new charter be formed with Sander's proposition included... Ragnar Us
Shane, On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 10:36:10PM +0200, Shane Kerr wrote:
Please use this mailing list for discussion.
Please see below for a version of the proposed charter based on Shane's proposal and after reading all the comments on the mailing list. I tried to incorporate as many comments as possible and tried to clean up the language a little bit. This version is intended as input for composing a final proposal and is my own personal opinion as an individual contributor to this working group. The biggest change that was not discussed yet was that I left 'Cooperation' out. I felt that it was already somewhat covered under outreach and is something that is a natural for any RIPE working group - to say it in another way, RIPE working groups exist for the purpose of cooperation. Basically, I support the work item but I did not see much reason to list it specifically. In addition, I felt that the workitem sounded rather vague if you don't know about the background text so an alternative could be to bring it back but make it a bit more clear what it means. Please let Shane/the working group know what you think. David Kessens --- ---- IPv6 is the next generation of the Internet Protocol (IP). The IPv6 working group exists to advance the adoption of IPv6 in the Internet. The working group activities cover anything that facilitates the deployment of IPv6 and that supports the co-existence of IPv6 and IPv4. These activities include: * Outreach * Education * Share and track deployment experiences * Propose solutions for operational issues ----
Background ---------- The current IPv6 working group charter is out-of-date:
The IPv6 working group follows the progress of specification and implementation of the new IP version. It coordinates implementations in Europe and is going to create testbeds.
It comes from a time when IPv6 was immature; the focus was keeping track of technological advances and working on experimental networks. That time is over, and the IPv6 working group needs an updated charter.
Goal ---- The goal of creating a new charter is to do more than simply to update the text.
We have almost finished allocating all IPv4 addresses. IPv6 is still only used by a small fraction of network traffic, many devices do not support IPv6 at all, and most organizations have no plans for IPv6 adoption.
RIPE is a unique community, and should do what it can to help make the migration to IPv6 as easy as possible. A new charter is just the first step.
Commentary ---------- The proposed new charter lists some activities:
* Outreach * Co-operation * Education
Outreach involves getting people, organisations, and groups to begin or continue IPv6 adoption. This includes vendors, governments, and developers. It also includes groups which are traditionally unrepresented, like gamers or content creators. Outreach means both going to other venues and inviting people from outside the RIPE community to visiting RIPE activities.
Co-operation is working within the networking industry and without, to share resources and combine efforts. There are a large number of organisations and projects, and we should work with them whenever possible, so that IPv6 can fit in with their goals. This also includes co-operation with the many IPv6 efforts that exist worldwide.
Education means all methods of increasing IPv6 knowledge. Note that the RIPE NCC is not able to do very much in terms of education, since it cannot compete with its members. However, the RIPE IPv6 working group can and should educate.
-- Shane
David Kessens ---
----
IPv6 is the next generation of the Internet Protocol (IP). The IPv6 working group exists to advance the adoption of IPv6 in the Internet.
The working group activities cover anything that facilitates the deployment of IPv6 and that supports the co-existence of IPv6 and IPv4.
These activities include:
* Outreach * Education * Share and track deployment experiences * Propose solutions for operational issues
----
I support this new charter. Best Regards Ragnar Anfinsen Altibox AS Network Engineer Phone +47 51 90 80 00 Phone direct +47 51 90 82 35 Mobile +47 93 48 82 35 E-mail: ragnar.anfinsen@altibox.no www.altibox.no www.lyse.no
----
IPv6 is the next generation of the Internet Protocol (IP). The IPv6 working group exists to advance the adoption of IPv6 in the Internet.
The working group activities cover anything that facilitates the deployment of IPv6 and that supports the co-existence of IPv6 and IPv4.
These activities include:
* Outreach * Education * Share and track deployment experiences * Propose solutions for operational issues
----
Hi. My feeling is that proposed charter quite differs from Shane's text, even if it would be modified with comments that followed in discussion. I would like to ask why? I would suggest Shane to modify his text with comments and post it again. I think that's his job to do. Chair needs just to steer the discussion if it goes in a wrong direction. Don't get me wrong, David's comments in discussion are more than welcome, but with his chair hat off. Regards, Jan Zorz P.S: BTW, what happened with co-chair proposal? Dissapeared?
Jan, On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 09:37:50AM +0100, Jan Zorz @ go6.si wrote:
My feeling is that proposed charter quite differs from Shane's text, even if it would be modified with comments that followed in discussion. I would like to ask why?
I tried to include a lot of the discussion on the list. In addition, I tried out some potentially better wording. To say it in a different way, the question is not "why", the question is whether there are elemements that you like better or worse than in the original version so that you can help Shane write a better version?
Don't get me wrong, David's comments in discussion are more than welcome, but with his chair hat off.
I obviously agree. Did you miss the following in my mail? I think I was quite clear when I wrote: "This version is intended as input for composing a final proposal and is my own personal opinion as an individual contributor to this working group."
P.S: BTW, what happened with co-chair proposal? Dissapeared?
I think this was mentioned during the working group session: we first deal with the charter. David Kessens --- From: David Kessens <david.kessens@nsn.com> To: Shane Kerr <shane@time-travellers.org> Cc: ipv6-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg] Proposal for new charter Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:40:48 -0700 Shane, On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 10:36:10PM +0200, Shane Kerr wrote:
Please use this mailing list for discussion.
Please see below for a version of the proposed charter based on Shane's proposal and after reading all the comments on the mailing list. I tried to incorporate as many comments as possible and tried to clean up the language a little bit. This version is intended as input for composing a final proposal and is my own personal opinion as an individual contributor to this working group. The biggest change that was not discussed yet was that I left 'Cooperation' out. I felt that it was already somewhat covered under outreach and is something that is a natural for any RIPE working group - to say it in another way, RIPE working groups exist for the purpose of cooperation. Basically, I support the work item but I did not see much reason to list it specifically. In addition, I felt that the workitem sounded rather vague if you don't know about the background text so an alternative could be to bring it back but make it a bit more clear what it means. Please let Shane/the working group know what you think. David Kessens --- ---- IPv6 is the next generation of the Internet Protocol (IP). The IPv6 working group exists to advance the adoption of IPv6 in the Internet. The working group activities cover anything that facilitates the deployment of IPv6 and that supports the co-existence of IPv6 and IPv4. These activities include: * Outreach * Education * Share and track deployment experiences * Propose solutions for operational issues ----
Background ---------- The current IPv6 working group charter is out-of-date:
The IPv6 working group follows the progress of specification and implementation of the new IP version. It coordinates implementations in Europe and is going to create testbeds.
It comes from a time when IPv6 was immature; the focus was keeping track of technological advances and working on experimental networks. That time is over, and the IPv6 working group needs an updated charter.
Goal ---- The goal of creating a new charter is to do more than simply to update the text.
We have almost finished allocating all IPv4 addresses. IPv6 is still only used by a small fraction of network traffic, many devices do not support IPv6 at all, and most organizations have no plans for IPv6 adoption.
RIPE is a unique community, and should do what it can to help make the migration to IPv6 as easy as possible. A new charter is just the first step.
Commentary ---------- The proposed new charter lists some activities:
* Outreach * Co-operation * Education
Outreach involves getting people, organisations, and groups to begin or continue IPv6 adoption. This includes vendors, governments, and developers. It also includes groups which are traditionally unrepresented, like gamers or content creators. Outreach means both going to other venues and inviting people from outside the RIPE community to visiting RIPE activities.
Co-operation is working within the networking industry and without, to share resources and combine efforts. There are a large number of organisations and projects, and we should work with them whenever possible, so that IPv6 can fit in with their goals. This also includes co-operation with the many IPv6 efforts that exist worldwide.
Education means all methods of increasing IPv6 knowledge. Note that the RIPE NCC is not able to do very much in terms of education, since it cannot compete with its members. However, the RIPE IPv6 working group can and should educate.
-- Shane
To say it in a different way, the question is not "why", the question is whether there are elemements that you like better or worse than in the original version so that you can help Shane write a better version?
There are. I'll do that and help Shane modify the original proposal.
I think this was mentioned during the working group session: we first deal with the charter.
agree. :) Cheers, Jan Zorz
Jan, On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 06:10:34PM +0100, Jan Zorz @ go6.si wrote:
To say it in a different way, the question is not "why", the question is whether there are elemements that you like better or worse than in the original version so that you can help Shane write a better version?
There are. I'll do that and help Shane modify the original proposal.
And now with my working group chair hat on ;-): It is helpful if you post such comments (negative as well as positive) on the list so that people have a chance to show agreement or disagreement, or suggestions for improvement. Eg. it is much easier for Shane to know whether a particular direction makes sense if he knows that there is support from more than one person. David Kessens ---
There are. I'll do that and help Shane modify the original proposal.
And now with my working group chair hat on ;-):
It is helpful if you post such comments (negative as well as positive) on the list so that people have a chance to show agreement or disagreement, or suggestions for improvement. Eg. it is much easier for Shane to know whether a particular direction makes sense if he knows that there is support from more than one person.
Shane has had a lot of support on this list. I think it would be best if Shane remains the author of the new charter, as agreed at the last RIPE meeting. I think having multiple versions of the charter text confuses people. Shane is the one who wrote the first version. Let him look at the comments and propose a second version. We can then see if we have consensus on that version or if we need another version. But we should let Shane do the task he was given at the meeting. And after the charter is done we can start the co-chair election process. Sander.
Sander, On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 06:48:54PM +0100, Sander Steffann wrote:
I think it would be best if Shane remains the author of the new charter, as agreed at the last RIPE meeting.
You are implying that this in question. There is no such question on the table. As I wrote in my mail, my text (just as the text you wrote yourself!) was intended as comment/input for Shane and Shane will write the final text. At the same time, everybody is free to give suggestions for larger or smaller pieces of text that Shane can use. Especially the comments on these suggestions will be helpful for Shane to determine what direction to take on the final text. Making such suggestions on the list (as opposed to privately) is a lot more transparent and allows for public comment. Basically, we are a working group and everybody can and is encouraged to contribute to the end result. David Kessens ---
And now with my working group chair hat on ;-):
It is helpful if you post such comments (negative as well as positive) on the list so that people have a chance to show agreement or disagreement, or suggestions for improvement. Eg. it is much easier for Shane to know whether a particular direction makes sense if he knows that there is support from more than one person.
David hi. Normally I would agree with you, I also think public discussion is important. In this case we saw massive support for Shane's first charter and also support for few suggestions for modifications. Shane just needs to tweak a bit his text and we might get the charter with full consensus in a very short period of time. I think no more data collecting is needed on this and that's why I agreed on helping Shane with tweaking the text. With respect, Jan Zorz
Jan On 26 Oct 2009, at 18:21, Jan Zorz @ go6.si wrote:
I think no more data collecting is needed on this and that's why I agreed on helping Shane with tweaking the text.
Perhaps it is worth mentioning that the proposed charter was first posted to the list on the 16th of this month, a mere 10 days ago. During that time, certainly in this part of the world, it has been a school holiday period so it is quite possible for people to not even have read the discussion at this point. What if someone has objections to the tweaked proposals, are you saying that it is too late for them to comment on new text? The charter discussion is not something that should be wrapped up in less than two weeks, we wouldn't make policy within that timeframe under the PDP, neither should we set a new WG charter in that timescale in my opinion. Regards f
Hi Fergas.
What if someone has objections to the tweaked proposals, are you saying that it is too late for them to comment on new text?
Absolutely not. Regards, Jan
On 26.10.09 20:36, Jan Zorz @ go6.si wrote:
Hi Fergas.
What if someone has objections to the tweaked proposals, are you saying that it is too late for them to comment on new text?
Absolutely not.
Regards, Jan
Fergas suggested me offlist to clarify this a bit. My view of how it should be done is: Shane proposed charter-01, strong support was shown and some comments came in. Shane needs to compile charter-02 and gather more comments (if any). If comments, charter-03 should be done, and so on until we get the consensus. That's how work gets done. Everything else is just chatting and ego fighting. Somebody mentioned hostility; I'm not, not even close, I just give short answers sometimes for some people. ... and I strongly agree with Sanders's today answer. Off until -02. Have fun, Jan
Thus wrote Jan Zorz @ go6.si (jan@go6.si):
In this case we saw massive support for Shane's first charter and also support for few suggestions for modifications. Shane just needs to tweak a bit his text and we might get the charter with full consensus in a very short period of time.
I think no more data collecting is needed on this and that's why I agreed on helping Shane with tweaking the text.
So shut up and go away? Last time I checked a WG chair was allowed to contribute as well. I don't quite understand why you feel the need to be this hostile. regards, spz -- spz@serpens.de (S.P.Zeidler)
Jan, On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 07:21:12PM +0100, Jan Zorz @ go6.si wrote:
In this case we saw massive support for Shane's first charter and also support for few suggestions for modifications. Shane just needs to tweak a bit his text and we might get the charter with full consensus in a very short period of time.
I don't think it is useful to speak in terms of people being against or for a particular proposal. Both me and Sander sent different revisions of the original text. I don't think either of was not in support of the original text: we both had some ideas on how it was possible to rearrange/improve the text. As my text was based on Sander's text, and I tried to incorporated some of the ideas posted on the mailing list my text naturally appeared to be somewhat more different from the original than Sander's. On the other hand, I tried not to change the direction except from what I picked up from the comments from the list and the change about leaving out the word 'cooperation' (which was a real change and which I motivated!). Basically, we really don't have a situation of disagreement: we seem to have mostly converged but talking on different ways on how to present/write up the points that we want in the charter. This is not about disagreeing it is about working together to get the best possible text together. I do believe it is important to spend some time on this: the charter is the first thing that the world sees about the working group so posting some different options of arranging the text or using different words gives us a chance to get a charter together that is clear but also reads well and looks professional.
I think no more data collecting is needed on this and that's why I agreed on helping Shane with tweaking the text.
Of course the actual final text needs to be written down by somebody and we asked Shane to do so. In addition, it is perfectly fine if Shane gets some help. On the other hand, we are a working group and doing some of the work on the mailing list has the benefit that we don't have to do as many iterations of the final text as more people have already seen the potential tweaks and suggestions on the mailing list (for example, if Sander had send his text privately, he would have had no idea whether people liked his tweaks). David Kessens ---
On Thursday 22 October 2009 23:40:48 David Kessens wrote: I finally managed to read the entire thread. From all the discussions up to know, I prefer the wording of David's proposal. So I support this while waiting for Shane's input. It's really nice to see this mailing list being utilized. Kostas Zorbadelos
----
IPv6 is the next generation of the Internet Protocol (IP). The IPv6 working group exists to advance the adoption of IPv6 in the Internet.
The working group activities cover anything that facilitates the deployment of IPv6 and that supports the co-existence of IPv6 and IPv4.
These activities include:
* Outreach * Education * Share and track deployment experiences * Propose solutions for operational issues
----
right, but it would be good if there are not multiple versions evolving in parallel. I think david was trying to helpful but unintentionally introduced confusion. So, Shane could you perhaps merge all input up to this point and put a new version out for comment? Then David can perhaps wrap up the discussion and call for consensus? Joao On 27 Oct 2009, at 16:55, Kostas Zorbadelos wrote:
On Thursday 22 October 2009 23:40:48 David Kessens wrote:
I finally managed to read the entire thread.
From all the discussions up to know, I prefer the wording of David's proposal. So I support this while waiting for Shane's input.
It's really nice to see this mailing list being utilized.
Kostas Zorbadelos
----
IPv6 is the next generation of the Internet Protocol (IP). The IPv6 working group exists to advance the adoption of IPv6 in the Internet.
The working group activities cover anything that facilitates the deployment of IPv6 and that supports the co-existence of IPv6 and IPv4.
These activities include:
* Outreach * Education * Share and track deployment experiences * Propose solutions for operational issues
----
Joao, Apologies for being so quiet on this in the midst of the discussion. Rest assured, I have been following it with great interest. However, I am traveling, so a bit distracted at this moment. I will review all of the discussion again, and produce a new version today ("today" ending at midnight in California). Cheers, -- Shane On Wed, 2009-10-28 at 18:11 +0100, João Damas wrote:
right, but it would be good if there are not multiple versions evolving in parallel. I think david was trying to helpful but unintentionally introduced confusion.
So, Shane could you perhaps merge all input up to this point and put a new version out for comment? Then David can perhaps wrap up the discussion and call for consensus?
Joao
On 27 Oct 2009, at 16:55, Kostas Zorbadelos wrote:
On Thursday 22 October 2009 23:40:48 David Kessens wrote:
I finally managed to read the entire thread.
From all the discussions up to know, I prefer the wording of David's proposal. So I support this while waiting for Shane's input.
It's really nice to see this mailing list being utilized.
Kostas Zorbadelos
----
IPv6 is the next generation of the Internet Protocol (IP). The IPv6 working group exists to advance the adoption of IPv6 in the Internet.
The working group activities cover anything that facilitates the deployment of IPv6 and that supports the co-existence of IPv6 and IPv4.
These activities include:
* Outreach * Education * Share and track deployment experiences * Propose solutions for operational issues
----
João, On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 06:11:38PM +0100, João Damas wrote:
So, Shane could you perhaps merge all input up to this point and put a new version out for comment? Then David can perhaps wrap up the discussion and call for consensus?
Maybe you missed my mail regarding the procedure that we were going to follow to get a new charter in place, but it matches exactly what you came up with 10 days later ;-). David Kessens --- Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 21:46:43 -0700 From: David Kessens <david.kessens@nsn.com> To: ipv6-wg@ripe.net Subject: Procedural approach for approval of new charter Hi, First of all, a big thank you to Shane for writing the new proposed charter. I propose that we spend until Oct 23 to give feedback to Shane. At that point, we will ask whether Shane can do a revision and I will issue a Last Call when the revision is ready so that we can get a new charter in place as soon as possible. And finally, it is nice to have a new shiny charter, but it is even more important that we as a community actually do something with it. For example, there is nothing that should stop individual participants to do proposals or volunteer for any activities that would bring our new charter (closer) to completion. For example, it would be good to hear how and whether we can do something regarding the issue that Geert Jan brought up about a week ago. David Kessens ---
On 28 Oct 2009, at 20:30, David Kessens wrote:
João,
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 06:11:38PM +0100, João Damas wrote:
So, Shane could you perhaps merge all input up to this point and put a new version out for comment? Then David can perhaps wrap up the discussion and call for consensus?
Maybe you missed my mail regarding the procedure that we were going to follow to get a new charter in place, but it matches exactly what you came up with 10 days later ;-).
great! let's keep going. Joao
participants (19)
-
Anders Mundt Due -
Anfinsen, Ragnar -
Carlos Friacas -
David Kessens -
Dmitry Burkov -
Fearghas McKay -
Jan Zorz ＠ go6.si -
joao damas -
Jogi Hofmueller -
João Damas
-
Kostas Zorbadelos -
Marco Hogewoning -
Matjaž Straus -
Philip Smith -
S.P.Zeidler -
Sander Steffann -
Sascha Lenz -
Shane Kerr -
Us