Hello This is not what I meant: ----------
This is exactly what happened here, a majority of people that know themselves well before the task force decided which task force members they want and which they don't want.
It seems rather premature to announce what the task force you are on has decided before the community has even seen any of their work, so I have to assume this is a personal opinion from you and not part of your work on the task force. ---------- I meant that they (Sergey Myasoedov) removed me from the task force only because 5 people from the task force asked him for me to be removed only because Cynthia Revstrom treated that she will leave the task force. If a majority of people in a task force can decide on whom to remove from a task force - then a task force will never be diverse in opinions, and these five task force members knows themselves very well from before the task force and Erik Bais even sent blinks to Cynthia Revstrom in twitter that they will take care of me. The other task force members didn't want me to be removed but unfortunately only members of the illegal secret community Ops-Trust are giving the tone in RIPE. I was asked before how RIPE is being controlled behind the scenes by the illegal anonymous organization "The Spamhaus Project" and the bigger group that it is related to of Ops-Trust community, this is an example - five RIPE members remove any opposition of them and they will bring the next policies of RIPE Executive Board members for the GM to confirm, to make sure that always there will be RIPE Executive Board members that fits the illegal secret community of Ops-Trust. Kind Regards, Elad ________________________________ From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of Andy Smith <andy-ripe.net@bitfolk.com> Sent: Friday, July 24, 2020 4:33 PM To: members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Fw: RIPE NCC Executive Board Election Task Force Members Hi Elad, On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 02:23:27PM +0000, Elad Cohen wrote:
This is exactly what happened here, a majority of people that know themselves well before the task force decided which task force members they want and which they don't want.
It seems rather premature to announce what the task force you are on has decided before the community has even seen any of their work, so I have to assume this is a personal opinion from you and not part of your work on the task force. To avoid future possible confusion maybe it would be best if you refrained from commenting publicly on what this task force will decide, or else clearly marking your posts on this topic as your personal opinion. It seems to me that this sort of responsibility comes with being on such a task force. In any case I rather expect the exec board election task force to decide about any rules that need to be changed regarding who is eligible to stand, how they should conduct themselves within the campaigning period, the candidate biographies, etc etc not just a pronouncement that "Elad may not stand". All of that to be decided on the basis of rough consensus of the community, I would hope. Personally speaking I am entirely happy to see you stand again and comprehensively fail to be elected again, as long as that isn't accompanied by the circus you created on this mailing list last time and your abuse of the RIPE database for direct mailing. I look forward to the task force you are on seeking input from the membership so I can formally relay that opinion to them in the hope that any future abuse can be avoided without preventing you (or any member) from standing. Regards, Andy _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/elad%40netstyle.io