Re: [opensource-wg] Call for support of co-chair candidates
Dear Martin, Thank you for your quick response. It's important for me to clarify my position regarding the RIPE chair selection process, and equally important to receive responses to my points that remain unanswered. Firstly, with respect to Luka Perkov, our interactions have been within a professional context. It is through these professional interactions that I have been introduced to RIPE and its various activities on multiple occasions. Regarding the other candidates, I assure you that my vote was cast following a thorough and informed examination of their profiles and contributions. During my research, I observed an instance where an individual associated with RIPE used their official ripe.net email address to cast a vote. The deliberate choice of using a RIPE email implies a certain awareness of the influence it carries. This early vote, seemingly endorsed officially, subtly suggests a process that might appear, to the cautious observer, as conveniently arranged. When combined with the evolving narrative of whose votes count and whose don’t — as if the rules are being written and rewritten in real-time — it certainly raises eyebrows about the true consistency and impartiality of this process. In light of our commitment to transparency, I'm curious – will this vote be counted, or are we continuing to adapt the rules to fit the moment? In our dialogues, a recurrent issue is the cycle of new questions that emerge following my responses, often sidestepping the depth of the answers I've already provided. This pattern of continuously shifting focus hinders our ability to delve deeply and transparently into the core issues. Moreover, when discussions reach a significant point, they are frequently concluded with statements and conclusions like "you did not convince me," which serve more as conversation enders than as constructive contributions. Given this, will my points raised in the previous email be thoroughly addressed? The absence of a detailed response will be quite telling and, in itself, a significant answer, especially in light of the critical issues I have brought forward. To reiterate, my decision to participate in the voting was informed by a thorough understanding of RIPE, the Open Source Working Group, and the qualifications of all the candidates. I trust this message clarifies my position well. Considering the observations and discussions above, I am looking forward to your responses to these points, as well as to the unresolved topics I mentioned in my previous email. Clear answers to these concerns are to allow everyone within the community to contribute more effectively. Warm regards, Ines uto, 19. pro 2023. u 22:06 Martin Winter <mwinter@netdef.org> napisao je:
Ines,
thanks for the introduction. However, I'm less concerned and about your professional background and was actually asking on how you found about the Open Source WG and the election going on. You mentioned that you know Luka and trust him, but do you know the other candidates? I'm concerned on people voting who did not take the time to look at all the candidates and just pick a local friend.
So again, if you think we should count your particular vote, then please explain: - How did you learn about the chair selection process? After all, the email for the selection process was sent before you joined. - How did you decide that your choice is better than the other choices? After all you are new to this group and seem to be still confused about it. (I take this from the mention of the number of emails on the list. We mainly work on the meeting, so while it would be nice to have a more active list, our main charter isn't the list. Go and check out the RIPE websites for our mission on this (and other) WG
And if you would have attended the past RIPE or listened to the recording, then you would probably better understand the selection process. And yes, things were not done perfectly and I currently plan to bring this up at the next WG meeting at the RIPE in spring 2024. Attend the meeting and join in on the discussion on how to make the selection better. Also keep in mind, this is a chail selection process. And myself and Marco (the existing chairs) did not publicly mention as I didn't want to set an example for others to follow or influence. And yes, my first choice didn't make it either.
So far you did nothing to convince me - more to the opposite that I have the feeling you try to avoid the answers to the questions. But that's fair. And I don't expect you to open up to everyone, but you try to make a point that your vote should count and I still haven't heard an argument about why.
But please stick around and join us at future RIPE meetings. You may learn how we may not have fixed rules, but we decide mostly on what is best for the community. (And you could learn why this helps)
Regards, Martin Winter
On Tue, Dec 19, 2023 at 2:17 PM Ines Skelac <ines.skelac@ffrz.hr> wrote:
Dear Martin,
Thank you for extending a welcome to me and for engaging in this
important dialogue. I am grateful for the opportunity to share my perspective and to deepen my involvement with the RIPE community.
In your email, you highlighted the importance of being a well-informed
and active member of the community, particularly in the context of voting for leadership positions. However, the growing inconsistency surrounding the nature of this process — whether it was intended as a public call for candidate support, a forum for expressing opinions, or an element of a specific selection procedure — is of considerable concern. This lack of clarity, which appears to be more than coincidental, has left myself, and possibly others, in a state of doubt regarding the appropriate way to respond and participate. My actions were based on the directives issued by the current chairs, yet I now find myself questioning if there might be a deeper, possibly unspoken, agenda underpinning these communications. While it perhaps truly is coincidentally inconvenient that such ambiguities were not adequately addressed prior to "unusual traffic in the list”, I would greatly appreciate your guidance in shedding light on the true purpose and framework of this initiative.
In my quest to navigate through this entanglement, I delved into the
historical records of our mailing list. My investigation revealed a notably sparse flow of communication, with only about 20 emails exchanged annually on average. Given that we are now approaching the year's end, I am expecting that someone might at some point propose a thoughtful reduction in email traffic for these remaining days of December. This strategy potentially could preserve the customary communication patterns, ensuring a well-balanced and smooth transition into the upcoming year, and potentially revitalizing the usual dialogue dynamics within the list.
Despite these well designed roadblocks, I would like to offer some
insights into my involvement and interest in the RIPE community, which will allow you to make informed decisions and not uninformed opinions.
I agree that knowing who we collaborate with is key for effective
teamwork. Acknowledging your concerns, I appreciate the chance to introduce myself. Surely you have noticed that I've used my official email for group subscription to affirm my genuine interest and identity, underscoring my commitment to maintaining the integrity and trustworthiness of our voting process.
As a philosopher and computational linguist with experience in training
language models and the ethics of big data, I believe I can offer insights and expertise to the RIPE community. My introduction to RIPE was through a recommendation by Luka Perkov, a long-time collaborator, and a respected member of the open source community. Over the past year, my research group has extensively utilized statistical data, which has been very useful in our work. At the University of Zagreb as well as at Entimem Ltd, we have specialized in deep learning analysis of religious texts of various religions, and RIPE's data has been helpful in measuring activities, aiding our project proposals and research.
As I have now introduced myself in this e-mail as requested, I am now
very interested to learn more about other members in the same way, namely those whose opinions are given weight in these discussions and decisions so that I am at least given an opportunity to engage in the conversation. This would not only foster a sense of safety and inclusion but also align with the RIPE’s Code of Conduct, where it is stated that one of the main goals of the RIPE community is “to help everyone feel safe and included. Many people will be new to our community. Some may have had negative experiences in other communities. We want to set a clear expectation that harassment and related behaviours are not tolerated here. If people do have an unpleasant experience, they will know that this is neither the norm nor acceptable to us as a community.”
In closing, I would appreciate any information on how we collaborate and
meet outside of the RIPE meetings, so I can efficiently plan my involvement. Additionally, if there are any resources, guidelines, or specific contacts that could help me get started and blend more smoothly into the team, I would be most grateful for that information. What I have seen so far is very intriguing and I am very interested to understand the dynamics of the community.
Warm regards,
Ines
pon, 18. pro 2023. u 11:25 Martin Winter <mwinter@netdef.org> napisao
Ines.
First of all welcome. And yes, you are one of the impacted persons as well who just joined the list after the RIPE meeting, not attended any recent RIPEs and were still informed well enough to immediatly vote after joining the list.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:14 AM Ines Skelac <ines.skelac@ffrz.hr>
wrote:
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.
Is it really alarming that we don't allow votes from people who were not part of the community when the voting started? In all democracies I know, you have to be registered/present some time before the voting starts. If you would be part of the RIPE community for a bit longer then you would be aware that usually the voting would be at the meeting itself. We decided at the last minute to give people a bit more time after they heard each of them introducing themself at the meeting and give them 2 weeks to make up their minds. Maybe we should have been clear that later joins are not eligible to vote, but then you wouldn't have seen or heard that anyway as you were not yet part of the community.
So instead of making wild accusations that this is alarming, please take yourself as an example and explain why YOUR vote should count. Explain how you know about the voting and how you heard about ALL of the candidates and about your past experience with RIPE (which got you a bit familiar with the community, our goal of the WG) - which I assume you all know to be able to pick the best candidate. Please be aware, we didn't look for the most popular person or the one with the most followers or the best Open Source background. We were looking for the best choice for a WG chair. How this is defined might be viewed differently by each person.
If you can explain this, then we might be happy to reconsider counting your vote. So far, the only ones complaining are the ones who signed up days after the meeting and voted immediately.
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.
Please be aware that you can attend RIPE for free from remote. No travel required. No money required. This is a very low entry level. And no, this does not produce a unwelcoming environment, but protects the working group to be not potentially controlled by some outside force. By your definition, welcoming would mean that I can create a bot to create votes and you expect them to be counted. Or I can go and ask all my friends to join and vote in exchange for a beer. This has nothing to do with welcoming, but all about protecting the integrity of the vote.
I welcome you to join the next RIPE meeting and bring up this in person to discuss with the whole group.
Regards, Martin Winter Open Source WG Chair
Moreover, such a stance is unacademic and unethical. It disregards
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
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
sub, 16. pro 2023. u 23:45 Ondřej Surý <ondrej@dns.rocks> napisao je:
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
Ondrej
On 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
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
I don't like to go this far. We (as the chairs) have no proof or indication that any of the candidates actively tried to manipulate
je: 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. diversity and openness to all voices, including those of its newest members. that might drag for a long time. 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. participated in the RIPE community would not be accepted by this community and it would be divisive and toxic to the future work. the
voting. However, some candidates might be more popular in their own social circles and may have mentioned that they are candidates. And I think that's all good and fair. I can't blame the candidates for this or for the fact if someone then just signed up to vote for him. I have no indication that he/she motivated them to do this. As such, I assume all candidates are innocent and did not try to manipulate the voting.
Regards, Martin Winter Open Source WG Chair
-- Ondřej Surý (He/Him) ondrej@sury.org
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 11:19 AM Ines Skelac <ines.skelac@ffrz.hr> wrote:
Dear Martin,
Thank you for your quick response. It's important for me to clarify my position regarding the RIPE chair selection process, and equally important to receive responses to my points that remain unanswered.
Firstly, with respect to Luka Perkov, our interactions have been within a professional context. It is through these professional interactions that I have been introduced to RIPE and its various activities on multiple occasions. Regarding the other candidates, I assure you that my vote was cast following a thorough and informed examination of their profiles and contributions.
During my research, I observed an instance where an individual associated with RIPE used their official ripe.net email address to cast a vote. The deliberate choice of using a RIPE email implies a certain awareness of the influence it carries. This early vote, seemingly endorsed officially, subtly suggests a process that might appear, to the cautious observer, as conveniently arranged. When combined with the evolving narrative of whose votes count and whose don’t — as if the rules are being written and rewritten in real-time — it certainly raises eyebrows about the true consistency and impartiality of this process. In light of our commitment to transparency, I'm curious – will this vote be counted, or are we continuing to adapt the rules to fit the moment?
Being new to the RIPE community, you might not know that most RIPE members don't have ripe.net email addresses, and those are members of the RIPE NCC. On the main ripe-list archives, if you go back you will find a lot of discussion on the relationship between the NCC and the RIPE community, and the Wikipedia article for RIPE even mentions the difference. While RIPE NCC employees are often valued members of the RIPE community, the community (and the NCC) understand that NCC employees are usually representing their personal views and opinions, so ripe.net email addresses don't carry a different amount of weight.
In our dialogues, a recurrent issue is the cycle of new questions that emerge following my responses, often sidestepping the depth of the answers I've already provided. This pattern of continuously shifting focus hinders our ability to delve deeply and transparently into the core issues. Moreover, when discussions reach a significant point, they are frequently concluded with statements and conclusions like "you did not convince me," which serve more as conversation enders than as constructive contributions. Given this, will my points raised in the previous email be thoroughly addressed? The absence of a detailed response will be quite telling and, in itself, a significant answer, especially in light of the critical issues I have brought forward.
To reiterate, my decision to participate in the voting was informed by a thorough understanding of RIPE, the Open Source Working Group, and the qualifications of all the candidates. I trust this message clarifies my position well.
I've not been very active in RIPE for several years (and therefore didn't vote!) but really, a lot of times the chair selection process is by people who often attend RIPE meetings and who have contributed to the WG - usually by giving talks, helping organize, cajoling others to talk, or having insightful questions and discussions at the meetings. The mailing lists are often the least important part of RIPE working groups! Of course, since I'm not an active member, I am not voting, but I had to weigh in on this - as RIPE is a unique community, which I adore, but also took me a bit of time to understand. I encourage you to attend meetings, attend the working group sessions, and learn about the community with an open mind! Leslie (who used to be the vice chair of the RIPE PC - which is the programme committee for the plenary session, which has its own different selection process!)
Considering the observations and discussions above, I am looking forward to your responses to these points, as well as to the unresolved topics I mentioned in my previous email. Clear answers to these concerns are to allow everyone within the community to contribute more effectively.
Warm regards,
Ines
uto, 19. pro 2023. u 22:06 Martin Winter <mwinter@netdef.org> napisao je:
Ines,
thanks for the introduction. However, I'm less concerned and about your professional background and was actually asking on how you found about the Open Source WG and the election going on. You mentioned that you know Luka and trust him, but do you know the other candidates? I'm concerned on people voting who did not take the time to look at all the candidates and just pick a local friend.
So again, if you think we should count your particular vote, then please explain: - How did you learn about the chair selection process? After all, the email for the selection process was sent before you joined. - How did you decide that your choice is better than the other choices? After all you are new to this group and seem to be still confused about it. (I take this from the mention of the number of emails on the list. We mainly work on the meeting, so while it would be nice to have a more active list, our main charter isn't the list. Go and check out the RIPE websites for our mission on this (and other) WG
And if you would have attended the past RIPE or listened to the recording, then you would probably better understand the selection process. And yes, things were not done perfectly and I currently plan to bring this up at the next WG meeting at the RIPE in spring 2024. Attend the meeting and join in on the discussion on how to make the selection better. Also keep in mind, this is a chail selection process. And myself and Marco (the existing chairs) did not publicly mention as I didn't want to set an example for others to follow or influence. And yes, my first choice didn't make it either.
So far you did nothing to convince me - more to the opposite that I have the feeling you try to avoid the answers to the questions. But that's fair. And I don't expect you to open up to everyone, but you try to make a point that your vote should count and I still haven't heard an argument about why.
But please stick around and join us at future RIPE meetings. You may learn how we may not have fixed rules, but we decide mostly on what is best for the community. (And you could learn why this helps)
Regards, Martin Winter
On Tue, Dec 19, 2023 at 2:17 PM Ines Skelac <ines.skelac@ffrz.hr> wrote:
Dear Martin,
Thank you for extending a welcome to me and for engaging in this
important dialogue. I am grateful for the opportunity to share my perspective and to deepen my involvement with the RIPE community.
In your email, you highlighted the importance of being a well-informed
and active member of the community, particularly in the context of voting for leadership positions. However, the growing inconsistency surrounding the nature of this process — whether it was intended as a public call for candidate support, a forum for expressing opinions, or an element of a specific selection procedure — is of considerable concern. This lack of clarity, which appears to be more than coincidental, has left myself, and possibly others, in a state of doubt regarding the appropriate way to respond and participate. My actions were based on the directives issued by the current chairs, yet I now find myself questioning if there might be a deeper, possibly unspoken, agenda underpinning these communications. While it perhaps truly is coincidentally inconvenient that such ambiguities were not adequately addressed prior to "unusual traffic in the list”, I would greatly appreciate your guidance in shedding light on the true purpose and framework of this initiative.
In my quest to navigate through this entanglement, I delved into the
historical records of our mailing list. My investigation revealed a notably sparse flow of communication, with only about 20 emails exchanged annually on average. Given that we are now approaching the year's end, I am expecting that someone might at some point propose a thoughtful reduction in email traffic for these remaining days of December. This strategy potentially could preserve the customary communication patterns, ensuring a well-balanced and smooth transition into the upcoming year, and potentially revitalizing the usual dialogue dynamics within the list.
Despite these well designed roadblocks, I would like to offer some
insights into my involvement and interest in the RIPE community, which will allow you to make informed decisions and not uninformed opinions.
I agree that knowing who we collaborate with is key for effective
teamwork. Acknowledging your concerns, I appreciate the chance to introduce myself. Surely you have noticed that I've used my official email for group subscription to affirm my genuine interest and identity, underscoring my commitment to maintaining the integrity and trustworthiness of our voting process.
As a philosopher and computational linguist with experience in training
language models and the ethics of big data, I believe I can offer insights and expertise to the RIPE community. My introduction to RIPE was through a recommendation by Luka Perkov, a long-time collaborator, and a respected member of the open source community. Over the past year, my research group has extensively utilized statistical data, which has been very useful in our work. At the University of Zagreb as well as at Entimem Ltd, we have specialized in deep learning analysis of religious texts of various religions, and RIPE's data has been helpful in measuring activities, aiding our project proposals and research.
As I have now introduced myself in this e-mail as requested, I am now
very interested to learn more about other members in the same way, namely those whose opinions are given weight in these discussions and decisions so that I am at least given an opportunity to engage in the conversation. This would not only foster a sense of safety and inclusion but also align with the RIPE’s Code of Conduct, where it is stated that one of the main goals of the RIPE community is “to help everyone feel safe and included. Many people will be new to our community. Some may have had negative experiences in other communities. We want to set a clear expectation that harassment and related behaviours are not tolerated here. If people do have an unpleasant experience, they will know that this is neither the norm nor acceptable to us as a community.”
In closing, I would appreciate any information on how we collaborate
and meet outside of the RIPE meetings, so I can efficiently plan my involvement. Additionally, if there are any resources, guidelines, or specific contacts that could help me get started and blend more smoothly into the team, I would be most grateful for that information. What I have seen so far is very intriguing and I am very interested to understand the dynamics of the community.
Warm regards,
Ines
pon, 18. pro 2023. u 11:25 Martin Winter <mwinter@netdef.org> napisao
Ines.
First of all welcome. And yes, you are one of the impacted persons as well who just joined the list after the RIPE meeting, not attended any recent RIPEs and were still informed well enough to immediatly vote after joining the list.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:14 AM Ines Skelac <ines.skelac@ffrz.hr>
wrote:
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.
Is it really alarming that we don't allow votes from people who were not part of the community when the voting started? In all democracies I know, you have to be registered/present some time before the voting starts. If you would be part of the RIPE community for a bit longer then you would be aware that usually the voting would be at the meeting itself. We decided at the last minute to give people a bit more time after they heard each of them introducing themself at the meeting and give them 2 weeks to make up their minds. Maybe we should have been clear that later joins are not eligible to vote, but then you wouldn't have seen or heard that anyway as you were not yet part of the community.
So instead of making wild accusations that this is alarming, please take yourself as an example and explain why YOUR vote should count. Explain how you know about the voting and how you heard about ALL of the candidates and about your past experience with RIPE (which got you a bit familiar with the community, our goal of the WG) - which I assume you all know to be able to pick the best candidate. Please be aware, we didn't look for the most popular person or the one with the most followers or the best Open Source background. We were looking for the best choice for a WG chair. How this is defined might be viewed differently by each person.
If you can explain this, then we might be happy to reconsider counting your vote. So far, the only ones complaining are the ones who signed up days after the meeting and voted immediately.
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.
Please be aware that you can attend RIPE for free from remote. No travel required. No money required. This is a very low entry level. And no, this does not produce a unwelcoming environment, but protects the working group to be not potentially controlled by some outside force. By your definition, welcoming would mean that I can create a bot to create votes and you expect them to be counted. Or I can go and ask all my friends to join and vote in exchange for a beer. This has nothing to do with welcoming, but all about protecting the integrity of the vote.
I welcome you to join the next RIPE meeting and bring up this in person to discuss with the whole group.
Regards, Martin Winter Open Source WG Chair
Moreover, such a stance is unacademic and unethical. It disregards
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
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
sub, 16. pro 2023. u 23:45 Ondřej Surý <ondrej@dns.rocks> napisao
je:
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
Ondrej
On 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
> > 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
I don't like to go this far. We (as the chairs) have no proof or indication that any of the candidates actively tried to manipulate
voting. However, some candidates might be more popular in their own social circles and may have mentioned that they are candidates. And I think that's all good and fair. I can't blame the candidates for this or for the fact if someone
je: 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. diversity and openness to all voices, including those of its newest members. that might drag for a long time. 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. participated in the RIPE community would not be accepted by this community and it would be divisive and toxic to the future work. the then
just signed up to vote for him. I have no indication that he/she motivated them to do this. As such, I assume all candidates are innocent and did not try to manipulate the voting.
Regards, Martin Winter Open Source WG Chair
-- Ondřej Surý (He/Him) ondrej@sury.org
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
Hi, On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 08:18:37PM +0100, Ines Skelac wrote:
To reiterate, my decision to participate in the voting was informed by a thorough understanding of RIPE, the Open Source Working Group, and the qualifications of all the candidates.
This statement sounds great, but you still fail to answer the simple question Martin has asked. 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
On 2023-12-21 20:18, Ines Skelac wrote:
Thank you for your quick response. It's important for me to clarify my position regarding the RIPE chair selection process, and equally important to receive responses to my points that remain unanswered.
This is NOT a RIPE Chair selection process. I haven't heard about Mirjam Kühne stepping down. This is RIPE OpenSource Working Group Chair selection process. Please don't mix these two together.
Firstly, with respect to Luka Perkov, our interactions have been within a professional context. It is through these professional interactions that I have been introduced to RIPE and its various activities on multiple occasions. Regarding the other candidates, I assure you that my vote was cast following a thorough and informed examination of their profiles and contributions.
I believe that you voted based on a thorough and informed examination. I don't believe that you voted in good faith.
During my research, I observed an instance where an individual associated with RIPE used their official ripe.net <http://ripe.net> email address to cast a vote. The deliberate choice of using a RIPE email implies a certain awareness of the influence it carries. This early vote, seemingly endorsed officially, subtly suggests a process that might appear, to the cautious observer, as conveniently arranged. When combined with the evolving narrative of whose votes count and whose don’t — as if the rules are being written and rewritten in real-time — it certainly raises eyebrows about the true consistency and impartiality of this process. In light of our commitment to transparency, I'm curious – will this vote be counted, or are we continuing to adapt the rules to fit the moment?
You're nitpicking on a completely irrelevant topic. There is no officiality in Vesna's endorsement.
In our dialogues, a recurrent issue is the cycle of new questions that emerge following my responses, often sidestepping the depth of the answers I've already provided. This pattern of continuously shifting focus hinders our ability to delve deeply and transparently into the core issues. Moreover, when discussions reach a significant point, they are frequently concluded with statements and conclusions like "you did not convince me," which serve more as conversation enders than as constructive contributions. Given this, will my points raised in the previous email be thoroughly addressed? The absence of a detailed response will be quite telling and, in itself, a significant answer, especially in light of the critical issues I have brought forward.
To reiterate, my decision to participate in the voting was informed by a thorough understanding of RIPE, the Open Source Working Group, and the qualifications of all the candidates. I trust this message clarifies my position well.
Considering the observations and discussions above, I am looking forward to your responses to these points, as well as to the unresolved topics I mentioned in my previous email. Clear answers to these concerns are to allow everyone within the community to contribute more effectively.
The recurrent issue is your complete misunderstanding of the state we're in now. It's not whether your vote is going to count. It's not about code of conduct, nor about any other documents, written rules, not even mailing-list activity. Yes, you are technically right that there is no actual formalized selection process. Yes, it definitely looks fishy from the outside and you're completely right that the selection rules have changed during the process. However, that's not the point at all. The final and only question is – is the community going to respect Luka Perkov as OSS WG chair? And what I must say for myself, I won't. I actually don't care about the votes. I won't attend OSS WG meetings if he should get selected, and I'm going to actively ask other active participants to boycott the WG as well. Why? There is literally no documented contribution of Luka himself to the RIPE meeting community. No talk, no comment, no question, literally nothing. This is not about his contribution to open-source software. If Linus Torvalds or Richard Stallman came and asked to be selected for RIPE OSS WG chair, I would refuse them as well. I honestly didn't expect anybody in this position to even think about running for WG chair … but he not only did, but a bunch of voters emerged from the void, and when called out, they wrote long concerned e-mails packed with buzzwords. I can't trust Luka Perkov now, after all of this, regardless whether he's himself actually contributed to this state or not. I'm utterly disgusted. Maria
uto, 19. pro 2023. u 22:06 Martin Winter <mwinter@netdef.org> napisao je:
Ines,
thanks for the introduction. However, I'm less concerned and about your professional background and was actually asking on how you found about the Open Source WG and the election going on. You mentioned that you know Luka and trust him, but do you know the other candidates? I'm concerned on people voting who did not take the time to look at all the candidates and just pick a local friend.
So again, if you think we should count your particular vote, then please explain: - How did you learn about the chair selection process? After all, the email for the selection process was sent before you joined. - How did you decide that your choice is better than the other choices? After all you are new to this group and seem to be still confused about it. (I take this from the mention of the number of emails on the list. We mainly work on the meeting, so while it would be nice to have a more active list, our main charter isn't the list. Go and check out the RIPE websites for our mission on this (and other) WG
And if you would have attended the past RIPE or listened to the recording, then you would probably better understand the selection process. And yes, things were not done perfectly and I currently plan to bring this up at the next WG meeting at the RIPE in spring 2024. Attend the meeting and join in on the discussion on how to make the selection better. Also keep in mind, this is a chail selection process. And myself and Marco (the existing chairs) did not publicly mention as I didn't want to set an example for others to follow or influence. And yes, my first choice didn't make it either.
So far you did nothing to convince me - more to the opposite that I have the feeling you try to avoid the answers to the questions. But that's fair. And I don't expect you to open up to everyone, but you try to make a point that your vote should count and I still haven't heard an argument about why.
But please stick around and join us at future RIPE meetings. You may learn how we may not have fixed rules, but we decide mostly on what is best for the community. (And you could learn why this helps)
Regards, Martin Winter
On Tue, Dec 19, 2023 at 2:17 PM Ines Skelac <ines.skelac@ffrz.hr> wrote: > > Dear Martin, > > Thank you for extending a welcome to me and for engaging in this important dialogue. I am grateful for the opportunity to share my perspective and to deepen my involvement with the RIPE community. > > In your email, you highlighted the importance of being a well-informed and active member of the community, particularly in the context of voting for leadership positions. However, the growing inconsistency surrounding the nature of this process — whether it was intended as a public call for candidate support, a forum for expressing opinions, or an element of a specific selection procedure — is of considerable concern. This lack of clarity, which appears to be more than coincidental, has left myself, and possibly others, in a state of doubt regarding the appropriate way to respond and participate. My actions were based on the directives issued by the current chairs, yet I now find myself questioning if there might be a deeper, possibly unspoken, agenda underpinning these communications. While it perhaps truly is coincidentally inconvenient that such ambiguities were not adequately addressed prior to "unusual traffic in the list”, I would greatly appreciate your guidance in shedding light on the true purpose and framework of this initiative. > > In my quest to navigate through this entanglement, I delved into the historical records of our mailing list. My investigation revealed a notably sparse flow of communication, with only about 20 emails exchanged annually on average. Given that we are now approaching the year's end, I am expecting that someone might at some point propose a thoughtful reduction in email traffic for these remaining days of December. This strategy potentially could preserve the customary communication patterns, ensuring a well-balanced and smooth transition into the upcoming year, and potentially revitalizing the usual dialogue dynamics within the list. > > Despite these well designed roadblocks, I would like to offer some insights into my involvement and interest in the RIPE community, which will allow you to make informed decisions and not uninformed opinions. > > I agree that knowing who we collaborate with is key for effective teamwork. Acknowledging your concerns, I appreciate the chance to introduce myself. Surely you have noticed that I've used my official email for group subscription to affirm my genuine interest and identity, underscoring my commitment to maintaining the integrity and trustworthiness of our voting process. > > As a philosopher and computational linguist with experience in training language models and the ethics of big data, I believe I can offer insights and expertise to the RIPE community. My introduction to RIPE was through a recommendation by Luka Perkov, a long-time collaborator, and a respected member of the open source community. Over the past year, my research group has extensively utilized statistical data, which has been very useful in our work. At the University of Zagreb as well as at Entimem Ltd, we have specialized in deep learning analysis of religious texts of various religions, and RIPE's data has been helpful in measuring activities, aiding our project proposals and research. > > As I have now introduced myself in this e-mail as requested, I am now very interested to learn more about other members in the same way, namely those whose opinions are given weight in these discussions and decisions so that I am at least given an opportunity to engage in the conversation. This would not only foster a sense of safety and inclusion but also align with the RIPE’s Code of Conduct, where it is stated that one of the main goals of the RIPE community is “to help everyone feel safe and included. Many people will be new to our community. Some may have had negative experiences in other communities. We want to set a clear expectation that harassment and related behaviours are not tolerated here. If people do have an unpleasant experience, they will know that this is neither the norm nor acceptable to us as a community.” > > In closing, I would appreciate any information on how we collaborate and meet outside of the RIPE meetings, so I can efficiently plan my involvement. Additionally, if there are any resources, guidelines, or specific contacts that could help me get started and blend more smoothly into the team, I would be most grateful for that information. What I have seen so far is very intriguing and I am very interested to understand the dynamics of the community. > > > Warm regards, > > Ines > > > > > > pon, 18. pro 2023. u 11:25 Martin Winter <mwinter@netdef.org> napisao je: >> >> Ines. >> >> First of all welcome. And yes, you are one of the impacted persons as >> well who just joined the list after the RIPE meeting, not attended any >> recent RIPEs and were still informed well enough to immediatly vote >> after joining the list. >> >> On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 9:14 AM Ines Skelac <ines.skelac@ffrz.hr> wrote: >> > >> > 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. >> >> Is it really alarming that we don't allow votes from people who were >> not part of the community when the voting started? In all democracies >> I know, >> you have to be registered/present some time before the voting starts. >> If you would be part of the RIPE community for a bit longer then you >> would be aware that usually the voting would be at the meeting itself. >> We decided at the last minute to give people a bit more time after >> they heard each of them introducing themself at the meeting and give >> them 2 weeks to make up their minds. Maybe we should have been clear >> that later joins are not eligible to vote, but then you wouldn't have >> seen or heard that anyway as you were not yet part of the community. >> >> So instead of making wild accusations that this is alarming, please >> take yourself as an example and explain why YOUR vote should count. >> Explain how you know about the voting and how you heard about ALL of >> the candidates and about your past experience with RIPE (which got you >> a bit familiar with the community, our goal of the WG) - which I >> assume you all know to be able to pick the best candidate. >> Please be aware, we didn't look for the most popular person or the one >> with the most followers or the best Open Source background. We were >> looking for the best choice for a WG chair. How this is defined might >> be viewed differently by each person. >> >> If you can explain this, then we might be happy to reconsider counting >> your vote. >> So far, the only ones complaining are the ones who signed up days >> after the meeting and voted immediately. >> >> > 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. >> >> Please be aware that you can attend RIPE for free from remote. No >> travel required. No money required. This is a very low entry level. >> And no, this does not produce a unwelcoming environment, but protects >> the working group to be not potentially controlled by some outside >> force. >> By your definition, welcoming would mean that I can create a bot to >> create votes and you expect them to be counted. Or I can go and ask >> all my friends to join and vote in exchange for a beer. This has >> nothing to do with welcoming, but all about protecting the integrity >> of the vote. >> >> I welcome you to join the next RIPE meeting and bring up this in >> person to discuss with the whole group. >> >> Regards, >> Martin Winter >> Open Source WG Chair >> >> > >> > 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 >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > sub, 16. pro 2023. u 23:45 Ondřej Surý <ondrej@dns.rocks> napisao je: >> >> >> >> 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. >> >> >> >> Ondrej >> >> >> >> On 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 or >> >> indication that any of the candidates actively tried to manipulate the >> >> voting. However, some candidates might be more popular in their own >> >> social circles and may have mentioned that they are candidates. And I >> >> think that's all good and fair. >> >> I can't blame the candidates for this or for the fact if someone then >> >> just signed up to vote for him. I have no indication that he/she >> >> motivated them to do this. >> >> As such, I assume all candidates are innocent and did not try to >> >> manipulate the voting. >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Martin Winter >> >> Open Source WG Chair >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Ondřej Surý (He/Him) >> >> ondrej@sury.org >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> 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 >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > 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
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Maria Matejka (she/her) | BIRD Team Leader | CZ.NIC, z.s.p.o.
participants (4)
-
Gert Doering -
Ines Skelac -
Leslie -
Maria Matejka