External thoughts on the Executive Board Election TF
Hi all, I've just had a cursory glance through the report and the mailing list minutes. I'd like to ask why the mailing list was not open to all please, I saw the minutes mentioned this but there was no explanation of why? Surely if the membership had requested for this to happen, it makes sense to allow them to be involved in the discussion. Some people may not want to commit to a full task force membership, but still give their view. I also tried to get to the Doodles and they don't work. Are they public at all please? Thanks Harry
Hi, (directed to EB) The archives appear to be gone, this needs to be fixed. (directed to Harry) The doodles were just scheduling times when the TF members were available for calls.
Surely if the membership had requested for this to happen, it makes sense to allow them to be involved in the discussion.
This is not quite true, it was the Executive Board who called for the Task Force to be created to write a report of suggested changes that the EB could present to the members for them to vote on.
Some people may not want to commit to a full task force membership, but still give their view.
Sadly I don't think this would have worked at all if it was a public mailing list. We needed a group of people who were invested into the issue and not have a bunch of comments from all over the place. The diversity-tf is/was(?) an open mailing list, that pretty much failed in my opinion due to it, and I think that this TF would have had the same outcome if it was open. -Cynthia On Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 18:02 Harry Cross <me@harrycross.me> wrote:
Hi all, I've just had a cursory glance through the report and the mailing list minutes.
I'd like to ask why the mailing list was not open to all please, I saw the minutes mentioned this but there was no explanation of why? Surely if the membership had requested for this to happen, it makes sense to allow them to be involved in the discussion. Some people may not want to commit to a full task force membership, but still give their view.
I also tried to get to the Doodles and they don't work. Are they public at all please?
Thanks
Harry
_______________________________________________ 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/me%40cynthia.re
I don't agree unfortunately, and I don't think self appointed groups within the NCC should be allowed to lock themselves away to make decisions about this sort of thing without some form of scrutiny. The mailing list doesn't have to be open to all to reply too, but at least to give a live overview of what is going on. At the moment it looks like a self appointed group was allowed to make recommendations, without any sort of chain of thought being made public until after it had happened and the damage has been done. RIPE Board, I would like to suggest that a rule is instigated in future to prohibit any mailing list being made private (bar anything for the members only), so that proper scrutiny of the work of the NCC and it's TFs can be undertaken. Thanks Harry On Sat, Nov 7, 2020 at 9:53 AM Cynthia Revström <me@cynthia.re> wrote:
Hi,
(directed to EB) The archives appear to be gone, this needs to be fixed.
(directed to Harry) The doodles were just scheduling times when the TF members were available for calls.
Surely if the membership had requested for this to happen, it makes sense to allow them to be involved in the discussion.
This is not quite true, it was the Executive Board who called for the Task Force to be created to write a report of suggested changes that the EB could present to the members for them to vote on.
Some people may not want to commit to a full task force membership, but still give their view.
Sadly I don't think this would have worked at all if it was a public mailing list. We needed a group of people who were invested into the issue and not have a bunch of comments from all over the place. The diversity-tf is/was(?) an open mailing list, that pretty much failed in my opinion due to it, and I think that this TF would have had the same outcome if it was open.
-Cynthia
On Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 18:02 Harry Cross <me@harrycross.me> wrote:
Hi all, I've just had a cursory glance through the report and the mailing list minutes.
I'd like to ask why the mailing list was not open to all please, I saw the minutes mentioned this but there was no explanation of why? Surely if the membership had requested for this to happen, it makes sense to allow them to be involved in the discussion. Some people may not want to commit to a full task force membership, but still give their view.
I also tried to get to the Doodles and they don't work. Are they public at all please?
Thanks
Harry
_______________________________________________ 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/me%40cynthia.re
[ trimmed down excessive CC list ] My definition of self appointed doesn’t seem to line up with yours. The task force was appointed by the Executive Board and made up from members of the community. Can you please elaborate where the “self appointed” claim is coming from? I also would like to strongly oppose the notion that such mailing lists need to be public. The mailing list was a communication tool to form thoughts and guide discussion towards the goal of the task force. Free discussions within a task force IMO can only happen when the task force can openly voice their opinions without thinking about how they are perceived by a wider public audience. The discussions might as well exclusively happen in video calls, and I sure hope you wouldn’t request access of the public to those calls. In summary: task forces are formed to work out a goal, for which they require privacy. Minutes of the discussions and regular updates (if it’s a longer running process) can be sensible to keep the public informed, but with this task force the final report contained plenty of information. Additionally, the final report was presented to the members and there was a vote on the relevant passages, so I fail to see how damages could be done by this proceeding. Marcus On 7 Nov 2020, at 12:23, Harry Cross wrote:
I don't agree unfortunately, and I don't think self appointed groups within the NCC should be allowed to lock themselves away to make decisions about this sort of thing without some form of scrutiny. The mailing list doesn't have to be open to all to reply too, but at least to give a live overview of what is going on.
At the moment it looks like a self appointed group was allowed to make recommendations, without any sort of chain of thought being made public until after it had happened and the damage has been done. RIPE Board, I would like to suggest that a rule is instigated in future to prohibit any mailing list being made private (bar anything for the members only), so that proper scrutiny of the work of the NCC and it's TFs can be undertaken.
Thanks
Harry
On Sat, Nov 7, 2020 at 9:53 AM Cynthia Revström <me@cynthia.re> wrote:
Hi,
(directed to EB) The archives appear to be gone, this needs to be fixed.
(directed to Harry) The doodles were just scheduling times when the TF members were available for calls.
Surely if the membership had requested for this to happen, it makes sense to allow them to be involved in the discussion.
This is not quite true, it was the Executive Board who called for the Task Force to be created to write a report of suggested changes that the EB could present to the members for them to vote on.
Some people may not want to commit to a full task force membership, but still give their view.
Sadly I don't think this would have worked at all if it was a public mailing list. We needed a group of people who were invested into the issue and not have a bunch of comments from all over the place. The diversity-tf is/was(?) an open mailing list, that pretty much failed in my opinion due to it, and I think that this TF would have had the same outcome if it was open.
-Cynthia
On Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 18:02 Harry Cross <me@harrycross.me> wrote:
Hi all, I've just had a cursory glance through the report and the mailing list minutes.
I'd like to ask why the mailing list was not open to all please, I saw the minutes mentioned this but there was no explanation of why? Surely if the membership had requested for this to happen, it makes sense to allow them to be involved in the discussion. Some people may not want to commit to a full task force membership, but still give their view.
I also tried to get to the Doodles and they don't work. Are they public at all please?
Thanks
Harry
_______________________________________________ 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/me%40cynthia.re
_______________________________________________ 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/lysis%40lys.is
Marcus, This was pretty much the point I was trying to make, thank you for putting it into words better than I could :) - Cynthia On Sat, Nov 7, 2020 at 1:04 PM Marcus Stoegbauer <lysis@lys.is> wrote:
[ trimmed down excessive CC list ]
My definition of self appointed doesn’t seem to line up with yours. The task force was appointed by the Executive Board and made up from members of the community. Can you please elaborate where the “self appointed” claim is coming from?
I also would like to strongly oppose the notion that such mailing lists need to be public. The mailing list was a communication tool to form thoughts and guide discussion towards the goal of the task force. Free discussions within a task force IMO can only happen when the task force can openly voice their opinions without thinking about how they are perceived by a wider public audience. The discussions might as well exclusively happen in video calls, and I sure hope you wouldn’t request access of the public to those calls.
In summary: task forces are formed to work out a goal, for which they require privacy. Minutes of the discussions and regular updates (if it’s a longer running process) can be sensible to keep the public informed, but with this task force the final report contained plenty of information. Additionally, the final report was presented to the members and there was a vote on the relevant passages, so I fail to see how damages could be done by this proceeding.
Marcus
On 7 Nov 2020, at 12:23, Harry Cross wrote:
I don't agree unfortunately, and I don't think self appointed groups within the NCC should be allowed to lock themselves away to make decisions about this sort of thing without some form of scrutiny. The mailing list doesn't have to be open to all to reply too, but at least to give a live overview of what is going on.
At the moment it looks like a self appointed group was allowed to make recommendations, without any sort of chain of thought being made public until after it had happened and the damage has been done. RIPE Board, I would like to suggest that a rule is instigated in future to prohibit any mailing list being made private (bar anything for the members only), so that proper scrutiny of the work of the NCC and it's TFs can be undertaken.
Thanks
Harry
On Sat, Nov 7, 2020 at 9:53 AM Cynthia Revström <me@cynthia.re> wrote:
Hi,
(directed to EB) The archives appear to be gone, this needs to be fixed.
(directed to Harry) The doodles were just scheduling times when the TF members were available for calls.
Surely if the membership had requested for this to happen, it makes sense to allow them to be involved in the discussion.
This is not quite true, it was the Executive Board who called for the Task Force to be created to write a report of suggested changes that the EB could present to the members for them to vote on.
Some people may not want to commit to a full task force membership, but still give their view.
Sadly I don't think this would have worked at all if it was a public mailing list. We needed a group of people who were invested into the issue and not have a bunch of comments from all over the place. The diversity-tf is/was(?) an open mailing list, that pretty much failed in my opinion due to it, and I think that this TF would have had the same outcome if it was open.
-Cynthia
On Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 18:02 Harry Cross <me@harrycross.me> wrote:
Hi all, I've just had a cursory glance through the report and the mailing list minutes.
I'd like to ask why the mailing list was not open to all please, I saw the minutes mentioned this but there was no explanation of why? Surely if the membership had requested for this to happen, it makes sense to allow them to be involved in the discussion. Some people may not want to commit to a full task force membership, but still give their view.
I also tried to get to the Doodles and they don't work. Are they public at all please?
Thanks
Harry
_______________________________________________ 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/me%40cynthia.re
_______________________________________________ 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/lysis%40lys.is
_______________________________________________ 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/me%40cynthia.re
I do still think that there should have been some more transparency when the report was published for those interested, such as easier to find the meeting minutes, and also I don't know why the mailing list archive is no longer available. - Cynthia On Sat, Nov 7, 2020 at 1:12 PM Cynthia Revström <me@cynthia.re> wrote:
Marcus,
This was pretty much the point I was trying to make, thank you for putting it into words better than I could :)
- Cynthia
On Sat, Nov 7, 2020 at 1:04 PM Marcus Stoegbauer <lysis@lys.is> wrote:
[ trimmed down excessive CC list ]
My definition of self appointed doesn’t seem to line up with yours. The task force was appointed by the Executive Board and made up from members of the community. Can you please elaborate where the “self appointed” claim is coming from?
I also would like to strongly oppose the notion that such mailing lists need to be public. The mailing list was a communication tool to form thoughts and guide discussion towards the goal of the task force. Free discussions within a task force IMO can only happen when the task force can openly voice their opinions without thinking about how they are perceived by a wider public audience. The discussions might as well exclusively happen in video calls, and I sure hope you wouldn’t request access of the public to those calls.
In summary: task forces are formed to work out a goal, for which they require privacy. Minutes of the discussions and regular updates (if it’s a longer running process) can be sensible to keep the public informed, but with this task force the final report contained plenty of information. Additionally, the final report was presented to the members and there was a vote on the relevant passages, so I fail to see how damages could be done by this proceeding.
Marcus
On 7 Nov 2020, at 12:23, Harry Cross wrote:
I don't agree unfortunately, and I don't think self appointed groups within the NCC should be allowed to lock themselves away to make decisions about this sort of thing without some form of scrutiny. The mailing list doesn't have to be open to all to reply too, but at least to give a live overview of what is going on.
At the moment it looks like a self appointed group was allowed to make recommendations, without any sort of chain of thought being made public until after it had happened and the damage has been done. RIPE Board, I would like to suggest that a rule is instigated in future to prohibit any mailing list being made private (bar anything for the members only), so that proper scrutiny of the work of the NCC and it's TFs can be undertaken.
Thanks
Harry
On Sat, Nov 7, 2020 at 9:53 AM Cynthia Revström <me@cynthia.re> wrote:
Hi,
(directed to EB) The archives appear to be gone, this needs to be fixed.
(directed to Harry) The doodles were just scheduling times when the TF members were available for calls.
Surely if the membership had requested for this to happen, it makes sense to allow them to be involved in the discussion.
This is not quite true, it was the Executive Board who called for the Task Force to be created to write a report of suggested changes that the EB could present to the members for them to vote on.
Some people may not want to commit to a full task force membership, but still give their view.
Sadly I don't think this would have worked at all if it was a public mailing list. We needed a group of people who were invested into the issue and not have a bunch of comments from all over the place. The diversity-tf is/was(?) an open mailing list, that pretty much failed in my opinion due to it, and I think that this TF would have had the same outcome if it was open.
-Cynthia
On Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 18:02 Harry Cross <me@harrycross.me> wrote:
Hi all, I've just had a cursory glance through the report and the mailing list minutes.
I'd like to ask why the mailing list was not open to all please, I saw the minutes mentioned this but there was no explanation of why? Surely if the membership had requested for this to happen, it makes sense to allow them to be involved in the discussion. Some people may not want to commit to a full task force membership, but still give their view.
I also tried to get to the Doodles and they don't work. Are they public at all please?
Thanks
Harry
_______________________________________________ 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/me%40cynthia.re
_______________________________________________ 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/lysis%40lys.is
_______________________________________________ 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/me%40cynthia.re
Dear Cynthia, all
On 7 Nov 2020, at 13:13, Cynthia Revström via members-discuss <members-discuss@ripe.net> wrote:
I do still think that there should have been some more transparency when the report was published for those interested, such as easier to find the meeting minutes, and also I don't know why the mailing list archive is no longer available.
I just want to note that the task force mailing list archives were published ahead of RIPE 81 and remain public. The correct URL is at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/eb-election-tf/ (If you chnange the URL to "elections" (plural), you'll find a separate mailing list that was created in error. Emails sent to this list are automatically forwarded to the correct one.) We have also added a link to the archives on the task force page: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/ripe-ncc-executive-board-electi... Regards, Hans Petter Holen Managing Director RIPE NCC
Ah thanks Hans Petter, that explains why I couldn't find it. - Cynthia On Wed, Nov 11, 2020, 16:31 Hans Petter Holen <hph@ripe.net> wrote:
Dear Cynthia, all
On 7 Nov 2020, at 13:13, Cynthia Revström via members-discuss < members-discuss@ripe.net> wrote:
I do still think that there should have been some more transparency when the report was published for those interested, such as easier to find the meeting minutes, and also I don't know why the mailing list archive is no longer available.
I just want to note that the task force mailing list archives were published ahead of RIPE 81 and remain public.
The correct URL is at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/eb-election-tf/
(If you chnange the URL to "elections" (plural), you'll find a separate mailing list that was created in error. Emails sent to this list are automatically forwarded to the correct one.)
We have also added a link to the archives on the task force page:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/ripe-ncc-executive-board-electi...
Regards,
Hans Petter Holen Managing Director RIPE NCC
On Sat, Nov 7, 2020 at 12:04 PM Marcus Stoegbauer <lysis@lys.is> wrote:
[ trimmed down excessive CC list ]
My definition of self appointed doesn’t seem to line up with yours. The task force was appointed by the Executive Board and made up from members of the community. Can you please elaborate where the “self appointed” claim is coming from?
I should have probably made this clearer, I meant to suggest that this group chose themselves to make the recommendations without any external scrutiny of the NCC or it's members. People may not want to commit themselves to an entire task force, but this should not stop them from being able to have their say.
I also would like to strongly oppose the notion that such mailing lists need to be public. The mailing list was a communication tool to form thoughts and guide discussion towards the goal of the task force. Free discussions within a task force IMO can only happen when the task force can openly voice their opinions without thinking about how they are perceived by a wider public audience. The discussions might as well exclusively happen in video calls, and I sure hope you wouldn’t request access of the public to those calls.
In summary: task forces are formed to work out a goal, for which they require privacy. Minutes of the discussions and regular updates (if it’s a longer running process) can be sensible to keep the public informed, but with this task force the final report contained plenty of information. Additionally, the final report was presented to the members and there was a vote on the relevant passages, so I fail to see how damages could be done by this proceeding.
My ultimate aim would be for the abolition of all closed off groups/TFs/WGs within RIPE/the NCC. There was no real time for the community to give their views until after the fact, and after the work was done. If the ML was made public, there would at least have been a chance for the community to see the chain of thought that went into the decisions that were made and maybe would have meant there could have been more constructive discussion. Surely if it's a suggestion to the board which is going to affect the entirety of the NCC, there should be some transparency of how the suggestion was made before the vote (this may have been done, but was not publicised well)? I understand some of the issues around this resolve back to moderation and keeping the discussion on topic. RIPE has a forum, could the WGs and TFs be moved there to ensure that the discussions can be locked open, but still managed in a way that keeps them on track? Potentially have 2 threads for each TF, one for the "members" to discuss and actually further the TF, but also a mandate to check another thread which is running for everyone else to dip in and out of to make their thoughts? This would ensure the rest of the Community actually have a live say in things, but won't get in the way of the TF doing it's job. The NCC made a lot of noise at RIPE81 about trying to attract new members and new "blood" into the NCC and community. Locked doors and locked away decisions and suggestion making won't help with this - but this is just an opinion. Thanks Harry
Marcus
On 7 Nov 2020, at 12:23, Harry Cross wrote:
I don't agree unfortunately, and I don't think self appointed groups within the NCC should be allowed to lock themselves away to make decisions about this sort of thing without some form of scrutiny. The mailing list doesn't have to be open to all to reply too, but at least to give a live overview of what is going on.
At the moment it looks like a self appointed group was allowed to make recommendations, without any sort of chain of thought being made public until after it had happened and the damage has been done. RIPE Board, I would like to suggest that a rule is instigated in future to prohibit any mailing list being made private (bar anything for the members only), so that proper scrutiny of the work of the NCC and it's TFs can be undertaken.
Thanks
Harry
On Sat, Nov 7, 2020 at 9:53 AM Cynthia Revström <me@cynthia.re> wrote:
Hi,
(directed to EB) The archives appear to be gone, this needs to be fixed.
(directed to Harry) The doodles were just scheduling times when the TF members were available for calls.
Surely if the membership had requested for this to happen, it makes sense to allow them to be involved in the discussion.
This is not quite true, it was the Executive Board who called for the Task Force to be created to write a report of suggested changes that the EB could present to the members for them to vote on.
Some people may not want to commit to a full task force membership, but still give their view.
Sadly I don't think this would have worked at all if it was a public mailing list. We needed a group of people who were invested into the issue and not have a bunch of comments from all over the place. The diversity-tf is/was(?) an open mailing list, that pretty much failed in my opinion due to it, and I think that this TF would have had the same outcome if it was open.
-Cynthia
On Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 18:02 Harry Cross <me@harrycross.me> wrote:
Hi all, I've just had a cursory glance through the report and the mailing list minutes.
I'd like to ask why the mailing list was not open to all please, I saw the minutes mentioned this but there was no explanation of why? Surely if the membership had requested for this to happen, it makes sense to allow them to be involved in the discussion. Some people may not want to commit to a full task force membership, but still give their view.
I also tried to get to the Doodles and they don't work. Are they public at all please?
Thanks
Harry
_______________________________________________ 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/me%40cynthia.re
_______________________________________________ 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/lysis%40lys.is
_______________________________________________ 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/me%40harrycross.me
Hi, On Sat, Nov 07, 2020 at 12:35:20PM +0000, Harry Cross wrote:
The NCC made a lot of noise at RIPE81 about trying to attract new members and new "blood" into the NCC and community. Locked doors and locked away decisions and suggestion making won't help with this - but this is just an opinion.
You are squarely mixing "RIPE community" and "RIPE NCC". The RIPE NCC is a formal organization which has an executive board, flowing money, and paying members. And members *vote* on what the EB should do, and how their money should be spent. And yes, this excludes all non-members from the final decision. The RIPE *community* is "all of us", and this is the primary focus of the RIPE meeting (of which the RIPE *member* AGM on wednesday evening is not a part, it just happens to happen in the same week to reduce travelling). RIPE is open, and the RIPE WGs solicit "fresh blood" to bring new impulses to the community. The RIPE NCC is not open in the sense of "anyone can come and influence RIPE NCC business". Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
"and how their money should be spent" The email below is from 14th of April 2020 (bold part by me): ----- Dear Elad, Thanks so much for your interest in RIPE NCC’s transactions. The Finance department sees it as one of its primary roles to give the membership full insight in the financial obligations of our association. Further to your questions to the Executive Board (Christian Kaufmann) please be informed that the Finance department plans to create a Purchase History Calendar with Purchases above 100k and a Capital Investment overview with investments above 25k. These overviews will be presented to the membership during the GM in May and I am confident that this will provide you with the information you are looking for. We will start with the 2019 details and we will make a comparison with 2018. Please allow us a couple of weeks to set up a proper format that also meets GDPR requirements. Happy to answer any more questions in the meantime, Kind rgs, Gwen van Berne CFO RIPE NCC ----- Anyone saw the purchase history calendar in the GM on May, or anywhere ? ... Maybe RIPE NCC representative can please step in ? ________________________________ From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of Gert Doering <gert@space.net> Sent: Saturday, November 7, 2020 5:52 PM To: Harry Cross <me@harrycross.me> Cc: Members Discuss <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] External thoughts on the Executive Board Election TF Hi, On Sat, Nov 07, 2020 at 12:35:20PM +0000, Harry Cross wrote:
The NCC made a lot of noise at RIPE81 about trying to attract new members and new "blood" into the NCC and community. Locked doors and locked away decisions and suggestion making won't help with this - but this is just an opinion.
You are squarely mixing "RIPE community" and "RIPE NCC". The RIPE NCC is a formal organization which has an executive board, flowing money, and paying members. And members *vote* on what the EB should do, and how their money should be spent. And yes, this excludes all non-members from the final decision. The RIPE *community* is "all of us", and this is the primary focus of the RIPE meeting (of which the RIPE *member* AGM on wednesday evening is not a part, it just happens to happen in the same week to reduce travelling). RIPE is open, and the RIPE WGs solicit "fresh blood" to bring new impulses to the community. The RIPE NCC is not open in the sense of "anyone can come and influence RIPE NCC business". Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Hi Elad, Yes they are in the supporting documents section of the page for the GM in May 2020. https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-743 - Cynthia On Sat, Nov 7, 2020 at 5:35 PM Elad Cohen <elad@netstyle.io> wrote:
"and how their money should be spent"
The email below is from 14th of April 2020 (bold part by me):
----- *Dear Elad,* *Thanks so much for your interest in RIPE NCC’s transactions. The Finance department sees it as one of its primary roles to give the membership full insight in the financial obligations of our association. *
*Further to your questions to the Executive Board (Christian Kaufmann) please be informed that the Finance department plans to create a Purchase History Calendar with Purchases above 100k and a Capital Investment overview with investments above 25k. *
*These overviews will be presented to the membership during the GM in May and I am confident that this will provide you with the information you are looking for. We will start with the 2019 details and we will make a comparison with 2018. Please allow us a couple of weeks to set up a proper format that also meets GDPR requirements. *
*Happy to answer any more questions in the meantime,* *Kind rgs,*
*Gwen van Berne * *CFO RIPE NCC* -----
Anyone saw the purchase history calendar in the GM on May, or anywhere ? ...
Maybe RIPE NCC representative can please step in ?
------------------------------ *From:* members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of Gert Doering <gert@space.net> *Sent:* Saturday, November 7, 2020 5:52 PM *To:* Harry Cross <me@harrycross.me> *Cc:* Members Discuss <members-discuss@ripe.net> *Subject:* Re: [members-discuss] External thoughts on the Executive Board Election TF
Hi,
On Sat, Nov 07, 2020 at 12:35:20PM +0000, Harry Cross wrote:
The NCC made a lot of noise at RIPE81 about trying to attract new members and new "blood" into the NCC and community. Locked doors and locked away decisions and suggestion making won't help with this - but this is just an opinion.
You are squarely mixing "RIPE community" and "RIPE NCC".
The RIPE NCC is a formal organization which has an executive board, flowing money, and paying members. And members *vote* on what the EB should do, and how their money should be spent. And yes, this excludes all non-members from the final decision.
The RIPE *community* is "all of us", and this is the primary focus of the RIPE meeting (of which the RIPE *member* AGM on wednesday evening is not a part, it just happens to happen in the same week to reduce travelling).
RIPE is open, and the RIPE WGs solicit "fresh blood" to bring new impulses to the community.
The RIPE NCC is not open in the sense of "anyone can come and influence RIPE NCC business".
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 _______________________________________________ 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/me%40cynthia.re
Please let me know where do you see "a Purchase History Calendar with Purchases above 100k and a Capital Investment overview with investments above 25k" in the PDF file in the linked that you shared? It doesn't appear there. It was neither in the GM in May 2020. And it was neither in "a couple of weeks" or ever, since the email dated 14th of April 2020. Maybe RIPE NCC representative can step in and please update regarding the status of it ? Me and many other RIPE members (that contacted me in the past) are very interested to know exactly to which entities the RIPE community money is paid. ________________________________ From: Cynthia Revström <me@cynthia.re> Sent: Saturday, November 7, 2020 6:52 PM To: Elad Cohen <elad@netstyle.io> Cc: Members Discuss <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] External thoughts on the Executive Board Election TF Hi Elad, Yes they are in the supporting documents section of the page for the GM in May 2020. https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-743 - Cynthia On Sat, Nov 7, 2020 at 5:35 PM Elad Cohen <elad@netstyle.io<mailto:elad@netstyle.io>> wrote: "and how their money should be spent" The email below is from 14th of April 2020 (bold part by me): ----- Dear Elad, Thanks so much for your interest in RIPE NCC’s transactions. The Finance department sees it as one of its primary roles to give the membership full insight in the financial obligations of our association. Further to your questions to the Executive Board (Christian Kaufmann) please be informed that the Finance department plans to create a Purchase History Calendar with Purchases above 100k and a Capital Investment overview with investments above 25k. These overviews will be presented to the membership during the GM in May and I am confident that this will provide you with the information you are looking for. We will start with the 2019 details and we will make a comparison with 2018. Please allow us a couple of weeks to set up a proper format that also meets GDPR requirements. Happy to answer any more questions in the meantime, Kind rgs, Gwen van Berne CFO RIPE NCC ----- Anyone saw the purchase history calendar in the GM on May, or anywhere ? ... Maybe RIPE NCC representative can please step in ? ________________________________ From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>> on behalf of Gert Doering <gert@space.net<mailto:gert@space.net>> Sent: Saturday, November 7, 2020 5:52 PM To: Harry Cross <me@harrycross.me<mailto:me@harrycross.me>> Cc: Members Discuss <members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] External thoughts on the Executive Board Election TF Hi, On Sat, Nov 07, 2020 at 12:35:20PM +0000, Harry Cross wrote:
The NCC made a lot of noise at RIPE81 about trying to attract new members and new "blood" into the NCC and community. Locked doors and locked away decisions and suggestion making won't help with this - but this is just an opinion.
You are squarely mixing "RIPE community" and "RIPE NCC". The RIPE NCC is a formal organization which has an executive board, flowing money, and paying members. And members *vote* on what the EB should do, and how their money should be spent. And yes, this excludes all non-members from the final decision. The RIPE *community* is "all of us", and this is the primary focus of the RIPE meeting (of which the RIPE *member* AGM on wednesday evening is not a part, it just happens to happen in the same week to reduce travelling). RIPE is open, and the RIPE WGs solicit "fresh blood" to bring new impulses to the community. The RIPE NCC is not open in the sense of "anyone can come and influence RIPE NCC business". Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/me%40cynthia.re
Excuse my 2 cents contribution. But is there any way to get out of this list ? I already tried and been automagically re registered. My doctor told me that I cannot read such threads anymore if I dont want heart attack or nervous break down. Thank you ! Laurent Mele Responsable de la Sécurité des Systèmes dInformation Groupe 01 43 18 19 20 www.infoclip.com <http://www.infoclip.com/> <http://twitter.com/Groupe_Infoclip> twitter.com/Groupe_Infoclip 20, rue de la michodière 75002 PARIS <http://www.infoclip.com/groupe-infoclip-adresse-et-plan-dacces> Plan d'accès <http://www.infoclip.com/> De : members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> De la part de Elad Cohen Envoyé : samedi 7 novembre 2020 18:05 À : Cynthia Revström <me@cynthia.re> Cc : Members Discuss <members-discuss@ripe.net> Objet : Re: [members-discuss] External thoughts on the Executive Board Election TF Please let me know where do you see "a Purchase History Calendar with Purchases above 100k and a Capital Investment overview with investments above 25k" in the PDF file in the linked that you shared? It doesn't appear there. It was neither in the GM in May 2020. And it was neither in "a couple of weeks" or ever, since the email dated 14th of April 2020. Maybe RIPE NCC representative can step in and please update regarding the status of it ? Me and many other RIPE members (that contacted me in the past) are very interested to know exactly to which entities the RIPE community money is paid. _____ From: Cynthia Revström <me@cynthia.re <mailto:me@cynthia.re> > Sent: Saturday, November 7, 2020 6:52 PM To: Elad Cohen <elad@netstyle.io <mailto:elad@netstyle.io> > Cc: Members Discuss <members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] External thoughts on the Executive Board Election TF Hi Elad, Yes they are in the supporting documents section of the page for the GM in May 2020. https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-743 - Cynthia On Sat, Nov 7, 2020 at 5:35 PM Elad Cohen <elad@netstyle.io <mailto:elad@netstyle.io> > wrote: "and how their money should be spent" The email below is from 14th of April 2020 (bold part by me): ----- Dear Elad, Thanks so much for your interest in RIPE NCCs transactions. The Finance department sees it as one of its primary roles to give the membership full insight in the financial obligations of our association. Further to your questions to the Executive Board (Christian Kaufmann) please be informed that the Finance department plans to create a Purchase History Calendar with Purchases above 100k and a Capital Investment overview with investments above 25k. These overviews will be presented to the membership during the GM in May and I am confident that this will provide you with the information you are looking for. We will start with the 2019 details and we will make a comparison with 2018. Please allow us a couple of weeks to set up a proper format that also meets GDPR requirements. Happy to answer any more questions in the meantime, Kind rgs, Gwen van Berne CFO RIPE NCC ----- Anyone saw the purchase history calendar in the GM on May, or anywhere ? ... Maybe RIPE NCC representative can please step in ? _____ From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> > on behalf of Gert Doering <gert@space.net <mailto:gert@space.net> > Sent: Saturday, November 7, 2020 5:52 PM To: Harry Cross <me@harrycross.me <mailto:me@harrycross.me> > Cc: Members Discuss <members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] External thoughts on the Executive Board Election TF Hi, On Sat, Nov 07, 2020 at 12:35:20PM +0000, Harry Cross wrote:
The NCC made a lot of noise at RIPE81 about trying to attract new members and new "blood" into the NCC and community. Locked doors and locked away decisions and suggestion making won't help with this - but this is just an opinion.
You are squarely mixing "RIPE community" and "RIPE NCC". The RIPE NCC is a formal organization which has an executive board, flowing money, and paying members. And members *vote* on what the EB should do, and how their money should be spent. And yes, this excludes all non-members from the final decision. The RIPE *community* is "all of us", and this is the primary focus of the RIPE meeting (of which the RIPE *member* AGM on wednesday evening is not a part, it just happens to happen in the same week to reduce travelling). RIPE is open, and the RIPE WGs solicit "fresh blood" to bring new impulses to the community. The RIPE NCC is not open in the sense of "anyone can come and influence RIPE NCC business". Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/me%40cynthia.re
My definition of self appointed doesn’t seem to line up with yours. The task force was appointed by the Executive Board and made up from members of the community.
my understanding is that the tf was formed of the full set of those who volunteered.
Can you please elaborate where the “self appointed” claim is coming from?
so, in a strange sense, they. well we, were self-appointed. :) randy
On Sat, Nov 7, 2020 at 05:37 Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
My definition of self appointed doesn’t seem to line up with yours. The task force was appointed by the Executive Board and made up from members of the community.
my understanding is that the tf was formed of the full set of those who volunteered.
a person was kicked out. just for the record.
Can you please elaborate where the “self appointed” claim is coming from?
so, in a strange sense, they. well we, were self-appointed. :)
randy
_______________________________________________ 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/elvis%40v4escrow.net
-- This message was sent from a mobile device. Some typos may be possible.
"a person was kicked out. just for the record." I confirm, and by the same people that decided that the discussions of the TF will be private. ________________________________ From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of Elvis Daniel Velea <elvis@v4escrow.net> Sent: Saturday, November 7, 2020 3:39 PM To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Cc: Members Discuss <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] External thoughts on the Executive Board Election TF On Sat, Nov 7, 2020 at 05:37 Randy Bush <randy@psg.com<mailto:randy@psg.com>> wrote:
My definition of self appointed doesn’t seem to line up with yours. The task force was appointed by the Executive Board and made up from members of the community.
my understanding is that the tf was formed of the full set of those who volunteered. a person was kicked out. just for the record.
Can you please elaborate where the “self appointed” claim is coming from?
so, in a strange sense, they. well we, were self-appointed. :) randy _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/elvis%40v4escrow.net -- This message was sent from a mobile device. Some typos may be possible.
"a person was kicked out. just for the record." I confirm, and by the same people that decided that the discussions of the TF will be private.
indeed. both were unanimous. in your case it was because of multiple blatant violations of the code of conduct. i requested it be formal, as you attacked me personally including religious slander and a threat to sue. note that i still stand by my original words
my understanding is that the tf was formed of the full set of those who volunteered.
randy
Randy, you are lying, why you don't make the discussions public so everyone will see exactly what was written? You are the one the defamed me *after* the task force chair wrote a message (without any warning) that I'm out of the task force. All I did was to respond to you, and it was after your message which was after the message from the task force chair that I'm out of the task force. Randy, can you confirm or deny that you are part of the mob-like Ops-Trust community ? (https://portal.ops-trust.net/) And for everyone - please let me add one more thing, in the PDF that was notified by RIPE NCC CEO regarding the task force report (link below), it was mentioned that I was removed from the task force because of "complaints", that sentence is misleading to believe that complaints came from the community, no - there were 0 complaints from the community according to the task force chair, all the complaints came from other task force members that didn't want me in the task force in the first place and even wrote it clearly in their twitter accounts. https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/october-2020/ripe-ncc-... ________________________________ From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Sent: Saturday, November 7, 2020 3:54 PM To: Elad Cohen <elad@netstyle.io> Cc: Elvis Daniel Velea <elvis@v4escrow.net>; Members Discuss <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] External thoughts on the Executive Board Election TF
"a person was kicked out. just for the record." I confirm, and by the same people that decided that the discussions of the TF will be private.
indeed. both were unanimous. in your case it was because of multiple blatant violations of the code of conduct. i requested it be formal, as you attacked me personally including religious slander and a threat to sue. note that i still stand by my original words
my understanding is that the tf was formed of the full set of those who volunteered.
randy
Randy, you are lying
bzzzzt! please read the code of conduct and try to abide by it.
Randy, can you confirm or deny that you are part of the mob-like Ops-Trust community ? (https://portal.ops-trust.net/)
to be honest, i do not even know to what you refer. i am quite unlikely to click a url from someone i do not trust. and domain whois does not yield useful information. so i am certainly not knowingly a member of whatever this is. and, for the record, i also stopped beating my wife (logic 101 ref).
And for everyone - please let me add one more thing, in the PDF that was notified by RIPE NCC CEO regarding the task force report (link below), it was mentioned that I was removed from the task force because of "complaints", that sentence is misleading to believe that complaints came from the community, no - there were 0 complaints from the community according to the task force chair, all the complaints came from other task force members that didn't want me in the task force in the first place and even wrote it clearly in their twitter accounts.
i, for one, really wanted you on the task force. i favor diverse views. but your extreme behavior and personal attack drove me to complain formally, and the complaint was upheld unanimously. randy
Yes Randy, and you didn't appear as a Spamhaus representative in Ops-Trust community event, in Estonia. ________________________________ From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Sent: Saturday, November 7, 2020 9:19 PM To: Elad Cohen <elad@netstyle.io> Cc: Elvis Daniel Velea <elvis@v4escrow.net>; Members Discuss <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] External thoughts on the Executive Board Election TF
Randy, you are lying
bzzzzt! please read the code of conduct and try to abide by it.
Randy, can you confirm or deny that you are part of the mob-like Ops-Trust community ? (https://portal.ops-trust.net/)
to be honest, i do not even know to what you refer. i am quite unlikely to click a url from someone i do not trust. and domain whois does not yield useful information. so i am certainly not knowingly a member of whatever this is. and, for the record, i also stopped beating my wife (logic 101 ref).
And for everyone - please let me add one more thing, in the PDF that was notified by RIPE NCC CEO regarding the task force report (link below), it was mentioned that I was removed from the task force because of "complaints", that sentence is misleading to believe that complaints came from the community, no - there were 0 complaints from the community according to the task force chair, all the complaints came from other task force members that didn't want me in the task force in the first place and even wrote it clearly in their twitter accounts.
i, for one, really wanted you on the task force. i favor diverse views. but your extreme behavior and personal attack drove me to complain formally, and the complaint was upheld unanimously. randy
Yes Randy, and you didn't appear as a Spamhaus representative in Ops-Trust community event, in Estonia.
not in this reality. as i said, never heard of it other than your repeated accusations. otoh, i do use spamhaus on my main inbound mta; good service. also sorbs, which i appreciate. also procmail in front of my mua, which tempts me. randy
Elad Cohen <elad@netstyle.io> wrote:
Yes Randy, and you didn't appear as a Spamhaus representative in Ops-Trust community event, in Estonia.
I love your rants about Spamhaus while you are yourself using a service that is known to rely on it. # dig MX netstyle.io +short 0 netstyle-io.mail.protection.outlook.com. So you are at least as much as a fool as those who delegate their filtering to those crappy blacklisters. PP
Peace, On Sat, Nov 7, 2020, 4:40 PM Elvis Daniel Velea <elvis@v4escrow.net> wrote:
my understanding is that the tf was formed of the full set of those who
volunteered.
a person was kicked out. just for the record.
The person was kicked after their non constructive criticism and code of conduct violations led to I think two other people announcing their intention to abandon their participation and contribution, at which point it was clear that it's impossible to preserve the original task force size anyway. The goal was to maximise the number of people involved, i.e. having one task force member leaving was considered better than having two. -- Töma
Toma, can you confirm or deny that you are part of the mob-like Ops-Trust community ? (https://portal.ops-trust.net/) ________________________________ From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of Töma Gavrichenkov <ximaera@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, November 7, 2020 4:00 PM To: Elvis Daniel Velea <elvis@v4escrow.net> Cc: Members Discuss <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] External thoughts on the Executive Board Election TF Peace, On Sat, Nov 7, 2020, 4:40 PM Elvis Daniel Velea <elvis@v4escrow.net<mailto:elvis@v4escrow.net>> wrote: my understanding is that the tf was formed of the full set of those who volunteered. a person was kicked out. just for the record. The person was kicked after their non constructive criticism and code of conduct violations led to I think two other people announcing their intention to abandon their participation and contribution, at which point it was clear that it's impossible to preserve the original task force size anyway. The goal was to maximise the number of people involved, i.e. having one task force member leaving was considered better than having two. -- Töma
Moderation please. I don’t want to see this kind of spam here again. Its sucks and isn’t helpful. Best, Maxi Impressum: Zeug e.K. Hochstraße 15 92637 Theisseil Inhaber: Maximilian Schieder Telefon: 015678 572314 E-Mail: maxi@zeug.co Registergericht: Amtsgericht Weiden in der Oberpfalz Registernummer: HRA 2907
On 7. Nov 2020, at 15:06, Elad Cohen <elad@netstyle.io> wrote:
Toma, can you confirm or deny that you are part of the mob-like Ops-Trust community ? (https://portal.ops-trust.net/ <https://portal.ops-trust.net/>) From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of Töma Gavrichenkov <ximaera@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, November 7, 2020 4:00 PM To: Elvis Daniel Velea <elvis@v4escrow.net> Cc: Members Discuss <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] External thoughts on the Executive Board Election TF
Peace,
On Sat, Nov 7, 2020, 4:40 PM Elvis Daniel Velea <elvis@v4escrow.net <mailto:elvis@v4escrow.net>> wrote: my understanding is that the tf was formed of the full set of those who volunteered.
a person was kicked out. just for the record.
The person was kicked after their non constructive criticism and code of conduct violations led to I think two other people announcing their intention to abandon their participation and contribution, at which point it was clear that it's impossible to preserve the original task force size anyway.
The goal was to maximise the number of people involved, i.e. having one task force member leaving was considered better than having two.
-- Töma _______________________________________________ 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/maxi%40zeug.co
To be honest, I think this entire thing is a key example of where my proposal to have the MLs locked open, with a side channel for discussion publicly would work well. Instead of "he said... she said", there would be an independent channel where people can see what actually happened. On Sat, Nov 7, 2020 at 2:12 PM Elad Cohen <elad@netstyle.io> wrote:
Toma, can you confirm or deny that you are part of the mob-like Ops-Trust community ? (https://portal.ops-trust.net/) ------------------------------ *From:* members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of Töma Gavrichenkov <ximaera@gmail.com> *Sent:* Saturday, November 7, 2020 4:00 PM *To:* Elvis Daniel Velea <elvis@v4escrow.net> *Cc:* Members Discuss <members-discuss@ripe.net> *Subject:* Re: [members-discuss] External thoughts on the Executive Board Election TF
Peace,
On Sat, Nov 7, 2020, 4:40 PM Elvis Daniel Velea <elvis@v4escrow.net> wrote:
my understanding is that the tf was formed of the full set of those who volunteered.
a person was kicked out. just for the record.
The person was kicked after their non constructive criticism and code of conduct violations led to I think two other people announcing their intention to abandon their participation and contribution, at which point it was clear that it's impossible to preserve the original task force size anyway.
The goal was to maximise the number of people involved, i.e. having one task force member leaving was considered better than having two.
-- Töma _______________________________________________ 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/me%40harrycross.me
Peace, On Sat, Nov 7, 2020, 5:22 PM Harry Cross <me@harrycross.me> wrote:
To be honest, I think this entire thing is a key example of where my proposal to have the MLs locked open, with a side channel for discussion publicly would work well.
Instead of "he said... she said", there would be an independent channel where people can see what actually happened.
I think there was an intention to publish the mailing list archives after the work is done. However, the mailing list itself wasn't established on the day zero of the task force existence (it's the task force members who decided that it's best to have one), and that conversation happened before it's creation. Seeing what started to happen at the beginning of the task force lifetime, I assume the public stream of comments and suggestions would have been flooded by nonconstructive discussions and mutual insulting. Given the reluctance of some of the task force volunteers to participate in those, I believe this would have led to either the public stream being largely ignored (with further resentment), or the task force collapsing, or both. For something completely unrelated: I see someone hasn't yet figured out that he's been procmailed long ago. That's interesting how long that would take. -- Töma
On Sat, Nov 07, 2020 at 01:01:30PM +0100, Marcus Stoegbauer wrote:
In summary: task forces are formed to work out a goal, for which they require privacy. Minutes of the discussions and regular updates (if it’s a longer running process) can be sensible to keep the public informed, but with this task force the final report contained plenty of information. Additionally, the final report was presented to the members and there was a vote on the relevant passages, so I fail to see how damages could be done by this proceeding.
1) the members of RIPE NCC are not "the public", they are the *owners* of the NCC. Everyone would do well to keep this fact in mind. 2) Minutes and proceedings of a "task force" that undertakes to make changes to the governance of the NCC (such as to pre-select who may be elected to the Board) should *absolutely* be public. They are important information to help decide which way to vote on whatever AoA changes fall out of this. 3) The TF report did *not* contain "plenty of information", in fact it omitted the most important details - such as: who determines what constitutes "fraud or financial irregularities" and who determines that such exist, or who decides what makes a candidate ineligible for election to the EB. My impression from the GM is that these processes are still vague and largely unresolved. rgds, Sascha Luck
participants (13)
-
Cynthia Revström -
Elad Cohen -
Elvis Daniel Velea -
Gert Doering -
Hans Petter Holen -
Harry Cross -
Laurent MELE -
Marcus Stoegbauer -
Maxi -
Pavel Polyakov -
Randy Bush -
Sascha Luck [ml] -
Töma Gavrichenkov