- ripe-chair-discuss - mailman.ripe.net

ripe-nomcom-11.md (ripe-xxx)
by Daniel Karrenberg 19 May '19

19 May '19

Attached you find a couple of corrections to the ripe-xxx draft with thanks to Brian Nisbet for one of those. The diff is included below. This is now the version to discuss here and at the BoF on Tuesday. Daniel ------- Other formats: https://web.karrenberg.net/ripe-chair-discuss/ripe-nomcom-11.html https://web.karrenberg.net/ripe-chair-discuss/ripe-nomcom-11.pdf ------------- --- ripe-nomcom-10.md +++ ripe-nomcom-11.md ripe-xxx -***D R A F T - Version 1.0*** +***D R A F T - Version 1.1*** May 2019 @@ -452,7 +452,7 @@ *The Chair does not vote on the selection of candidates.* -4.5. Chair Selection +### Chair Selection The chair of the RIPE NCC Executive board *appoints the Chair, who must meet the same requirements @@ -1142,7 +1142,7 @@ The chair of the RIPE NCC Executive Board *shall appoint a Recall Committee Chair*. -The cairn of the RIPE NCC Executive Board +The chair of the RIPE NCC Executive Board *must not evaluate the recall request. It is explicitly the responsibility of the* RIPE *community to evaluate the behavior of its* officials. @@ -1165,8 +1165,8 @@ *The recall committee investigates the circumstances of the justification for the recall and votes on its findings.* -*The investigation must include at least both an opportunity for the -member being recalled to present a written statement and consultation +*The investigation must include at least both an opportunity for the* +official *being recalled to present a written statement and consultation with third parties.* ### 3/4 Majority

1 0

ripe-chair-selection-11.md (ripe-yyy)
by Daniel Karrenberg 19 May '19

19 May '19

Attached you find a small revision to the ripe-yyy draft with a clarification suggested from Jim Reid. The diff is included below. This is now the version to discuss here and at the BoF on Tuesday. Personally I consider this ready for consensus call. Daniel ------- Other formats: https://web.karrenberg.net/ripe-chair-discuss/ripe-chair-selection-11.html https://web.karrenberg.net/ripe-chair-discuss/ripe-chair-selection-11.pdf ------- --- ripe-chair-selection-10.md +++ ripe-chair-selection-11.md @@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ ripe-yyy -***D R A F T - Version 1.0*** +***D R A F T - Version 1.1*** May 2019 @@ -132,7 +132,10 @@ ## Continuity In case the RIPE Chair resigns, the RIPE Vice Chair takes on the role of -RIPE Chair and promptly initiates this selection procedure. In case the RIPE Vice Chair is not available either, the RIPE WG Chairs Collective promptly selects a person to act as RIPE Chair Ad Interim and initiates this selection procedure. +RIPE Chair and promptly initiates this selection procedure. +In case the RIPE Vice Chair is not available either, +the RIPE WG Chairs Collective promptly initiates this selection procedure +and selects a person to act as RIPE Chair Ad Interim. In case the RIPE Vice Chair resigns, the RIPE Chair consults the community on how to proceed. They may either select a person to fill the role for the remaining term or decide to initiate this selection procedure. ------------

1 0

ripe-chair-selection-10.md & ripe-nomcom-10.md
by Daniel Karrenberg 14 May '19

14 May '19

Dear colleagues, Attached are two documents which we submit for discussion on the RIPE Chair selection process. One of the documents, marked "ripe-xxx", is perhaps quite different in length from what RIPE has been practicing until now. We'd like to explain how we landed on this as the proposal. Following the discussion at RIPE 77, the authors sought to come up with a "BCP10-like" procedure for RIPE. The more we looked at the text of BCP10 itself, and tried to come up with our own adjustments, the more it became clear that it is like program code: most of the time, the procedure follows a short path through the code; it's the error handling that adds to the length. That "error handling" text has been arrived at over time and much review in the IETF. So rather than remove chunks of it, with the risk of omitting something that the community would then have to reinvent, we decided to reuse BCP10 almost in its entirety. If the community decides, on reflection, that certain sections aren't needed after all, then they can of course be removed. We have highlighted the original text from BCP10 in *markdown emphasis*. This is a RIPE proposal and so all text is open to discussion, but when reviewing the document, this will advise you whether you are commenting on new text or text originally from BCP10. So: - ripe-yyy states the role to be selected, and that a nominating committee will be used to select for it. - ripe-xxx describes how to compose and operate that nominating committee. ripe-yyy is a close adaption of the text we have been discussing here up to now. The most significant change is the reference to the recall procedure of ripe-xxx. The documents are written in markdown. For those you prefer other formats we provide PDF and HTML here: https://web.karrenberg.net/ripe-chair-discuss/ripe-chair-selection-10.html https://web.karrenberg.net/ripe-chair-discuss/ripe-nomcom-10.html https://web.karrenberg.net/ripe-chair-discuss/ripe-chair-selection-10.pdf https://web.karrenberg.net/ripe-chair-discuss/ripe-nomcom-10.pdf We look forward to your comments on this list, and the discussion at RIPE 78. As usual we encourage you to propose alternative text when suggesting improvements. For the authors Daniel

4 7

The RIPE Chair Selection Process - v0.4
by Daniel Karrenberg 09 Apr '19

09 Apr '19

Esteemed colleagues, Based on recent discussions about the RIPE Chair selection, Anna, Mirjam, Hans Petter and I have been drafting language that will move us forward. Below you find the first document that is ready enough for discussion. It deals with the procedure and the time-line. We are still working on the second document which will describe the selection committee in detail. This will be modelled very closely on the IETF NomCom as described in BCP10. We feel that doing this in two steps is a logical split and will keep the discussion both alive and somewhat focussed; drawing hope from the way we got ripe-714 done on this list ;-). Also we may want to re-use the selection committee for other purposes in the future; in that case it will be better to have it described in a separate document. Of course we can only reach final consensus after discussing both documents. We welcome comments and suggestions from all of you. It will help greatly if you suggest concrete changes to the draft. Thank you, in the name of all authors and participants on this list! Daniel ------------------------------------------------------------- The RIPE Chair Selection Process Hans Petter Holen Mirjam Kuehne Daniel Karrenberg Anna Wilson ripe-yyy Version 0.4 March 2019 Scope This document describes the selection of the RIPE Chair and the RIPE Vice Chair. The role of RIPE Chair is described in ripe-714. The selection committee is described in ripe-xxx. Background The first Chair of RIPE, Rob Blokzijl, was selected informally. The community did not establish a formal mechanism to select a person for this role before the present time. When Rob asked Hans Petter Holen to assume the role of RIPE Chair he also suggested that RIPE should establish a more formal selection procedure. This document describes that procedure. For details see Appendix G. Principles The following broad principles emerged from an extensive community discussion: A selection committee drawn from the community selects persons for the role of RIPE Chair for a period of five years with a two term limit. The selection committee is selected randomly from the community volunteers and modelled roughly after the IETF NomCom. There role of the RIPE Vice Chair should be re-established. The persons selected for the roles of RIPE Chair and RIPE Vice Chair must both be suitable for the role and have the support of the RIPE Community. For details about the community discussions see Appendix G. RIPE Meeting A RIPE Meeting is an event where Internet Service Providers (ISPs), network operators and other interested parties gather to discuss issues of interest to the Internet community. This document assumes that there are two RIPE meetings each year. The RIPE Chair The role of RIPE Chair is described in ripe-714. This document describes the selection of a person for that role. We also describe the tasks of the current RIPE Chair in the process. The RIPE Vice Chair This document re-introduces the role of RIPE Vice Chair. The purpose of that role is to provide continuity in case the RIPE Chair resigns or is not able to perform their role. The RIPE Chair may also delegate some of their duties to the RIPE Vice Chair as described in ripe-714. The RIPE Selection Committee The RIPE Selection Committee (SelCom) selects persons for the RIPE Chair and RIPE Vice Chair roles. The selection committee consists of randomly selected community volunteers. The RIPE Selection Committee is described in ripe-xxx. The Working Group Chairs Collective In exceptional circumstances this document calls on the RIPE working group chairs collective whenever timely action or consultation is needed. General Time-Line The whole process takes roughly one year and two RIPE meetings. First a call for nominations is issued and the selection committee established. Then the list of nominees willing to be selected is published and the selection committee collects community input; this phase should include one RIPE meeting in order to provide the opportunity for personal interactions with the selection committee. We call this meeting the "consultation RIPE meeting". After the consultation meeting the selection committee publishes their selection. Finally, the newly selected persons take on their role; this happens at a RIPE meeting, so that the community can confirm their support for the selected persons. Eligibility and Term Limit Any natural person is eligible for selection unless they have already been selected twice for their current role. It does not matter whether or not the terms are consecutive. Term The RIPE Chair and RIPE Vice Chair serve until the RIPE meeting closest to the fifth anniversary of taking on their role. Nominations Around the fourth anniversary of taking on their role the RIPE Chair starts the new selection procedure by initiating the establishment of the selection committee, making a call for nominations and setting a deadline for nominations about eight weeks prior to the subsequent RIPE meeting, the consultation RIPE meeting. The SelCom checks the eligibility of the nominated persons, confirms whether the nominated persons wish to serve and publishes the list of nominees willing to serve no later than 2 weeks prior to the consultation RIPE meeting. Community Consultation The SelCom actively solicits input from the entire community. It does so as much as possible in an open and transparent manner while adequately protecting personal information about the candidates. Selection The SelCom then selects one person to serve as RIPE Chair and another person to serve as RIPE Vice Chair. The SelCom announces their selections no later than two weeks prior to the following meeting, the transition RIPE meeting. Transition At the transition RIPE meeting the newly selected persons take on their roles. Continuity In case the RIPE Chair resigns the RIPE Vice Chair takes on the role of RIPE Chair and promptly initiates this selection procedure. In case the RIPE Vice Chair is not available either, the WG chairs collective selects a person to act as interim RIPE Chair and initiates this selection procedure. In case the RIPE Vice Chair resigns the RIPE Chair selects a person to fill the role in consultation with the WG chairs collective. Pragmatism This document is a guideline that explicitly allows ad-hoc deviations both for pragmatic reasons and in unforeseen circumstances without having to change this document each time. Any such deviations and the appropriate community involvement should be clearly documented each time. Acknowledgements The authors acknowledge the contributions and efforts of everyone who participated in the community discussions that form the basis on which we were able to build this document. In particular Bijal Sanghani, Randy Bush, %%%% offered detailed suggestions and comments. Appendix A - About the Authors Hans Petter Holen is a RIPE participant since RIPE30 and the present chairman of RIPE. Rob Blokzijl asked him to ensure that the community establishes the procedure described here. Mirjam Kuehne is a RIPE participant since RIPE29 and a member of the RIPE NCC staff. She took on the task of supporting the community and Hans Petter in this effort. Daniel Karrenberg is one of the RIPE founders and a member of the RIPE NCC staff. He took on the job of editing this document and writing the bulk of the text. Anna Wilson is a RIPE participant since RIPE31. She has led several fairly intense community discussions about this procedure. Appendix G - Document Genesis In 2014, during the closing plenary at RIPE 68, Rob Blokzijl announced that he would be stepping down as RIPE Chair and handing the role over to the current chair, Hans Petter Holen. This decision was well supported by the RIPE community. However, it was clear that the process for selecting a future RIPE Chair should be open, transparent and endorsed by the RIPE community as a whole. At the time of the handover, Rob urged the community to establish such a process under its new chair. In 2016, Hans Petter started the discussion by publishing an article on RIPE Labs: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/hans_petter_holen/draft-ripe-chair-election-p… At the same time an open discussion mailing list was set up: https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ripe-chair-discuss/ At RIPE 76 in May 2018, Anna Wilson (HEANET, Ireland) led a community discussion (https://ripe76.ripe.net/archives/video/155/) to gather input on the elements that form the basis of a proposal which was published on RIPE Labs in July 2018: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/mirjam/proposal-for-a-ripe-chair-selection-pr… Based on the discussion on the ripe-chair-discuss mailing list, another RIPE Labs article was published documenting the consensus at the time: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/mirjam/ripe-chair-selection-process After that more people shared their input on the mailing list which led to another face-to-face discussion, again led by Anna Wilson during the closing plenary at RIPE 77 in October 2018 (https://ripe77.ripe.net/archives/video/2329/). During that meeting it was decided to first establish consensus on a description of the role of the RIPE Chair. This has been published as ripe-714: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-714

6 25

Fwd: RIPE-714 - RIPE Chair document has been published
by Hans Petter Holen 17 Jan '19

17 Jan '19

---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Hans Petter Holen <hph(a)oslo.net> Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2019 at 15:26 Subject: RIPE-714 - RIPE Chair document has been published To: <ripe-list(a)ripe.net> Consensus has been reached on the RIPE Chair document, following a discussion on the ripe-chair-discuss list and RIPE 77, with a call for consensus at the closing plenary at RIPE 77 and on the ripe-chair-discuss list. The document is now published as RIPE 714 https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-714 Thank you very much for all the contributions to the document. Especially to Daniel Karrenberg for authoring the document, To Mirjam Kühne for the ground work, Jim Reid for his contributions and Anna Wilson for leading the discussions at the RIPE meetings. -- Sincerely, Hans Petter Holen - hph(a)oslo.net - +47 45066054 -- Sincerely, Hans Petter Holen - hph(a)oslo.net - +47 45066054

1 0

RIPE Chair Selection Process
by Mirjam Kuehne 17 Jan '19

17 Jan '19

Dear colleagues, Based on community input, including a plenary session at RIPE 76 and a discussion on this mailing list, we put together a final version of the RIPE Chair selection process: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/mirjam/ripe-chair-selection-process This will be presented during the plenary at RIPE 77 with the aim to reach consensus on the process. Kind regards, Mirjam Kühne RIPE NCC

21 82

Re: [ripe-chair-discuss] RIPE Chair Selection Process
by Jim Reid 09 Oct '18

09 Oct '18

> On 9 Oct 2018, at 11:11, Job Snijders <job(a)instituut.net> wrote: > > I am not sure how elegant or fair that last part of the process will be if only one option is presented to the RIPE community and some think the WGCC made the wrong call. Then please suggest something better Job.

1 0

Draft RIPE 77 Working Group Chair Lunch Agenda
by Hans Petter Holen 27 Sep '18

27 Sep '18

Mirjam is taking over the role of Nick in facilitating the WG chairs lunch. She has prepared an agenda for us: RIPE 77 Working Group Chair Lunch Meeting Okura Hotel Amsterdam Griffioen room, 2nd floor Thursday 18 October 2018 - 12:30-14:00 Draft agenda: 1. Welcome/Intro (Mirjam, Hans Petter) 2. In/outgoing WG chairs (Hans Petter, all) 3. PC Submission System (Adam) 4. Spam on RIPE Forum (Adam) 5. RIPE Chair selection process (Hans Petter, Mirjam, all) 6. Future RIPE meeting structure (Hans Petter 7. Feedback on RIPE 77 meeting plan (all) 8. Administrative/technical overview of RIPE 77 (all) 9. AOB -- -- Hans Petter Holen Mobile +47 45 06 60 54 | hph(a)oslo.net | http://hph.oslo.net

1 1

RIPE Data Center Working Group
by Yousef Naimi 31 Aug '18

31 Aug '18

Dear RIPE chair, Hello I am planning to send this to the RIPE List but thought to check with you first. Please kindly let me know if you have any reservations or comments. My name is Yousef Naimi, Data Center Manager of Asiatech (AS43754). As an engineer who has been in IT industry for over 10 years, I was wondering why the RIPE doesn’t have a separate working group for Data Center Management and Issues. After having a cheking how to move forward with this idea with RIPE NCC staff at MENOG 18, I learned how the process for having a BoF works and here is my request to have one at RIPE 77. At first, it may look that the Data Center WG has might overlap with other WGs like connect, but there are lot of issues related to the data center world that RIPE does not cover in its current WGs. Here are some examples: • Automation and SDN, we need to discuss the road towards software-defined data centers as well as the way we incorporate automation and AI into our operations for optimal efficiency and transparency in real-time. How awesome that would be to share ideas about how can AI improve uptime and efficiency in data centers? What are the various AI applications available to improve our data system? (EPMS, DCIM, BCMs, BMS) • Data Center Architecture and emerging networks, there are lots of organizations/teams which are working on data center policies and network architectures in order to meet increasing demands of growing contents/applications. Some of these orgs are as: ü http://www.datacenterdynamics.com/ ü https://tmt.knect365.com/data-center-world/ The proposed WG can compile and act as a bridge between these venues and RIPE: • Data Center policies towards content, after all these years of centralization and decentralization of contents all over the world, governments are more concerned about reducing their budgets on building/maintaining data centers by integrating and merging several data centers into fewer ones. The project FDCCI (Federal Data Center Consolidation Initiative) in USA and similar projects in other countries shows how important this matter is. On the other hand, how we can identify the early signs that offloading some of our data congestion to the edge will be necessary? What kind of data should be taken to the edge and what are the latest applications and use cases for edge deployments? • Data Center Services pricing, we are still in the middle of the challenge that whether the data center owner has to charge content owners or if the content owner has to charge the end user for using its content in order to make the deal fair for all sides. However, we all are aware of pricing Colocation service or dedicated server or IXP interconnection/cross-connection services, but talking about new cloud-based services, we have not much clear method to distinguish costs/benefits of IaaS/SaaS/PaaS services. That would be awesome if we could share best practices from economical point of view. So, my question is what others think about this? Should we have a BoF at RIPE 77 in Amsterdam and explore this further? If there is support for the BoF, then we can see how it goes and possible propose formation of a new WG. I’d appreciate if I get opinion of others on this. Best Regards Yousef Naimi

2 2

List comments and working together as a community
by Nick Hilliard 02 Aug '18

02 Aug '18

Some days, the Internet does not shine. Today, as a result of things said on this mailing list, three people felt that they needed to vacate the discussion. This is not something to be proud of and it is something which benefits no-one. To the people who said things which were identified as being unhelpful (and this applies to everyone on this mailing list) can we please remember that this is a community trying to discuss things on a mailing list, and that email is probably one of the worst communications mechanisms ever devised. Things that are written are often not taken in the spirit in which they were intended; although no-one said anything which was intended to be malicious or hurtful, the tone in many emails today was unhelpful and in some cases inappropriate. We can do better than this as a community and I think we owe it to the community at large to do better. To the people who felt they needed to withdraw from this discussion: please reconsider. You have each made many valuable contributions to the RIPE community in the past and it would be a loss for everyone if you could not contribute to this discussion. Nick

2 2