Dear RIPE Community,
I am writing to express my disappointment and concern regarding the recent decision-making process for the open co-chair position in the RIPE community. As a new member of this esteemed group, I find the approach taken to be both disheartening and alarming.
The decision to disqualify votes from new members who may not have had the opportunity to attend a RIPE meeting or were not subscribed to the mailing list by a specific date seems not only unfair but also counterproductive. This approach overlooks the potential contributions of new members and creates an unwelcoming environment. It also appears to be grounded in logical fallacies, such as the 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' fallacy, which undermines the rationality of this decision.
Moreover, such a stance is unacademic and unethical. It disregards the principles of open dialogue and diversity of perspectives, which are crucial in any intellectual community. Disqualifying members without substantial evidence and not acknowledging the value of fresh perspectives can severely damage the integrity and reputation of the RIPE community.
As a new member eager to contribute, this experience is not only disheartening but also raises concerns about the future direction of the community. I urge the leadership to reconsider this approach and adopt more inclusive and equitable practices. The strength of a community lies in its diversity and openness to all voices, including those of its newest members.
I hope that my concerns will be taken seriously and that we can work together towards a more inclusive and respectful RIPE community.
Sincerely,
Ines Skelac, PhD, Assistant Professor
Vice-dean for Science, International Cooperation, Management and Quality Assurance
University of Zagreb, Faculty of Philosophy and Religious Studies
_______________________________________________Oh, I didn’t want to imply any intentional wrongdoing. I simply suggested that stepping down in such situation might be the best way to acknowledge the less than ideal situation and prevent the possible argument that might drag for a long time.OndrejOn Sat, Dec 16, 2023, at 23:22, Martin Winter wrote:Ondrej,On Sat, Dec 16, 2023 at 9:31 PM Ondřej Surý <ondrej@dns.rocks> wrote:> The way I read the decision from the chair, they strive to have the voting process work for the existing community. If suddenly there’s a surge of people who were never active in this community subscribing to the mailing list and voting for any of the candidates, I would consider this be a kind of hostile takeover.>> Honestly, I think the only fair way out of this would be if the candidate who received the surge of votes from people outside of this community stepped down. A co-chair elected with votes from people who never participated in the RIPE community would not be accepted by this community and it would be divisive and toxic to the future work.I don't like to go this far. We (as the chairs) have no proof orindication that any of the candidates actively tried to manipulate thevoting. However, some candidates might be more popular in their ownsocial circles and may have mentioned that they are candidates. And Ithink that's all good and fair.I can't blame the candidates for this or for the fact if someone thenjust signed up to vote for him. I have no indication that he/shemotivated them to do this.As such, I assume all candidates are innocent and did not try tomanipulate the voting.Regards,Martin WinterOpen Source WG Chair
opensource-wg mailing list
opensource-wg@ripe.net
https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/opensource-wg
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/opensource-wg