Dear all, Probably like many others, I haven't been following the RIPE Chair nomination process as closely as it has deserved over the last number of months. At the moment, the lineup looks like this: - the current RIPE chair is now - with safeguards in place - the RIPE NCC managing director. - one of the candidates is the previous chair of the RIPE NCC executive board. - one of the candidates is a current employee of the RIPE NCC. - the chair of the nom-com is a current employee of the RIPE NCC. This isn't a statement of lack of confidence in any of the people concerned, either individually or collectively, but it looks troubling from the point of view of governance practices. In the future, anyone should be able to look back at the nomination process and with full hindsight, feel comfortable that it was sound. I am not completely sure that we are in this position right now. Nick
On 12 May 2020, at 22:46, Nick Hilliard wrote:
Dear all,
Probably like many others, I haven't been following the RIPE Chair nomination process as closely as it has deserved over the last number of months.
At the moment, the lineup looks like this:
- the current RIPE chair is now - with safeguards in place - the RIPE NCC managing director.
- one of the candidates is the previous chair of the RIPE NCC executive board.
- one of the candidates is a current employee of the RIPE NCC.
- the chair of the nom-com is a current employee of the RIPE NCC.
This isn't a statement of lack of confidence in any of the people concerned, either individually or collectively, but it looks troubling from the point of view of governance practices.
In the future, anyone should be able to look back at the nomination process and with full hindsight, feel comfortable that it was sound. I am not completely sure that we are in this position right now.
Nick
Nick, Let me first respond in my role as chair of the 2020 RIPE Nominating Committee. I will later respond as a community member. The nomination process is soundly executed. As you are aware the RIPE Community has spent years to devise this process. The result is the most formal process in RIPE to date. It is therefore important that we follow it. To address your points: The current RIPE chair ad-interim had been nominated but has since informed the NomCom that he no longer wishes to be considered. So he is completely outside the process now. ripe-727 says: “Any natural person is eligible for selection unless they have already been selected twice for the role they are nominated for. …”. The NomCom has determined that all the nominees are eligible. ripe-728 defines the selection and the duties of the NomCom Chair. “The chair of the RIPE NCC Executive Board appoints the Chair, who must meet the same requirements for membership in the nominating committee as a voting volunteer.” Prior to accepting the appointment I have received assurances from RIPE NCC management that convinced me that I would be able to freely and independently execute the duties of that role. In particular “The Chair must be thoroughly familiar with the rules and guidance indicated throughout this document. The Chair must ensure the nominating committee completes its assigned duties in a manner that is consistent with this document. … The nominating committee Chair must agree to invest the time necessary to ensure that the nominating committee completes its assigned duties and to perform in the best interests of the RIPE community in that role.” All the steps in the process have been announced on the ripe mailing list in a timely manner. In addition the NomCom have set up a blog published background information on RIPE Labs. If you have any specific doubts about the execution of the RIPE Chair selection procedure, please bring them to my attention or the attention of the community so that we can address them. Daniel
Daniel Karrenberg wrote on 13/05/2020 08:01:
The nomination process is soundly executed. As you are aware the RIPE Community has spent years to devise this process. The result is the most formal process in RIPE to date. It is therefore important that we follow it. Daniel,
The procedures are not unreasonable, per-se. The individuals are fine too, for that matter - I have no doubts about both the good intentions and the good standing of all the individuals involved. What makes me uncomfortable are the current and recent-past working relationships between the individuals involved - particularly that there are relationships of authority involved. Nick
Hi, On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 05:21:26PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:
What makes me uncomfortable are the current and recent-past working relationships between the individuals involved - particularly that there are relationships of authority involved.
So what do you suggest to actually *do* now? Gert Doering -- member of the NomCom -- 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 Wed, 13 May 2020, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 05:21:26PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:
What makes me uncomfortable are the current and recent-past working relationships between the individuals involved - particularly that there are relationships of authority involved.
So what do you suggest to actually *do* now?
Hi, Will the NomCom still consider a 5th, 6th, 7th possibility, or that is completely out of the defined process...? Regards, Carlos
Gert Doering -- member of the NomCom -- 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, On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 05:50:00PM +0100, Carlos Friaças wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2020, Gert Doering wrote:
On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 05:21:26PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:
What makes me uncomfortable are the current and recent-past working relationships between the individuals involved - particularly that there are relationships of authority involved.
So what do you suggest to actually *do* now?
Will the NomCom still consider a 5th, 6th, 7th possibility, or that is completely out of the defined process...?
This would require a full restart of the process, I think https://blog.ripe-nomcom.org/time-line/ "Collecting Nominations The committee will collect nominations until March 29th 23:59 UTC. Committee members will actively solicit nominations. The list of nominees who confirm their commitment to serve will be published and continuously updated." 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
Thanks for making it clear Gert! Cheers, Carlos On Wed, 13 May 2020, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 05:50:00PM +0100, Carlos Friaças wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2020, Gert Doering wrote:
On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 05:21:26PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:
What makes me uncomfortable are the current and recent-past working relationships between the individuals involved - particularly that there are relationships of authority involved.
So what do you suggest to actually *do* now?
Will the NomCom still consider a 5th, 6th, 7th possibility, or that is completely out of the defined process...?
This would require a full restart of the process, I think
https://blog.ripe-nomcom.org/time-line/
"Collecting Nominations
The committee will collect nominations until March 29th 23:59 UTC. Committee members will actively solicit nominations. The list of nominees who confirm their commitment to serve will be published and continuously updated."
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
my eye is on the quality of the candidates and their track record. as integrity is a principal quality, imiho that handles coi, authority, financial, ... randy
On 13 May 2020, at 17:21, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote:
What makes me uncomfortable are the current and recent-past working relationships between the individuals involved - particularly that there are relationships of authority involved.
These seem unlikely to influence the Nomcom’s deliberations. Or if they did, those involved would do the right thing. As you said yourself Nick, you have no doubts about both the good intentions and the good standing of all the individuals involved. I’m struggling to understand why you’re uncomfortable. Are there any relationships of authority here? AFAICT none of the candidates are (or were) the boss of anyone on the Nomcom. Or vice versa. Though that doesn’t mean there could be perceptions that those relationships exist.
Nick, in addition to my response as the NomCom chair here is my personal response to your thoughts: On 12 May 2020, at 22:46, Nick Hilliard wrote:
Dear all,
Probably like many others, I haven't been following the RIPE Chair nomination process as closely as it has deserved over the last number of months.
That can happen and it is OK to share thoughts about anything. The RIPE Chair selection process has been discussed for years and is running for more than half a year now. I just wish you had spoken up at a time when making changes was possible: either during development of the process or at times when execution of the process allowed review or during the future review of the first run of the process based on the final report of the NomCom. I have the impression that you mix RIPE NCC corporate governance with RIPE community governance. If we were talking about selecting the RIPE NCC board I would be the first to agree that RIPE NCC employees need to have absolutely no formal part in it. But we are talking about RIPE community governance here. They are related but separate.
At the moment, the lineup looks like this:
- the current RIPE chair is now - with safeguards in place - the RIPE NCC managing director.
I cannot see how this is relevant. Hans Petter has no part in the selection process of his successor(s).
- one of the candidates is the previous chair of the RIPE NCC executive board.
Why should we a-priori exclude someone who has served before in a different capacity from being considered as RIPE Chair.
- one of the candidates is a current employee of the RIPE NCC.
Why should we require someone who is nominated to change their employment in order to be even considered? Would that be reasonable? Isn’t it important to find the best people for the role first, address possible conflicts-of interest second and ask them to resolve those only after we are sure we wish to select them? I do not expect the NomCom to select someone unless it is convinced that the selected candidates address issues such as this, including appearances.
- the chair of the nom-com is a current employee of the RIPE NCC.
This is RIPE community governance. I see no conflict with chairing the NomCom. The chair does not vote on candidate selection. I am completely free and independent in this role. In fact the RIPE NCC is the perfect employer for this because they have complete understanding that it takes significant time an energy to do this properly.
This isn't a statement of lack of confidence in any of the people concerned, either individually or collectively, but it looks troubling from the point of view of governance practices.
Superficially this is certainly true. But once you look closely I do not consider it troubling at all.
In the future, anyone should be able to look back at the nomination process and with full hindsight, feel comfortable that it was sound. I am not completely sure that we are in this position right now.
Yes we should feel comfortable that the process is executed soundly. The time for evaluation comes when the NomCom has submitted its final report. In the meantime let us follow the agreed procedure and by all means ensure that it is indeed followed. Daniel
Hi, Personal response as one of the NomCom members:
- the current RIPE chair is now - with safeguards in place - the RIPE NCC managing director.
This is correct. Hans Petter resigned as RIPE chair, and the Working Group chairs collective asked him to be ad-interim chair until NomCom can select the new chair and vide-chair (for the purpose of continuity IIRC).
- one of the candidates is the previous chair of the RIPE NCC executive board. - one of the candidates is a current employee of the RIPE NCC.
Correct. The NomCom takes all possible conflicts of interest into account for all candidates.
- the chair of the nom-com is a current employee of the RIPE NCC.
Do note that the chair is a non-voting seat, so a properly neutral chair in the tradition of RIPE Working Groups. And as a member of NomCom I can say that Daniel has chaired the NomCom properly and neutrally. So I understand your concerns about governance, but in terms of neutrality of NomCom everything is sound. The voting members of NomCom are randomly selected, the RIPE NCC Managing Director does not have any influence and the chair performs perfectly and neutrally (and is non-voting). Nominating candidates from more diverse backgrounds is up to the community :) Cheers, Sander
On 13 May 2020, at 03:41, Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> wrote:
- the chair of the nom-com is a current employee of the RIPE NCC.
Do note that the chair is a non-voting seat, so a properly neutral chair in the tradition of RIPE Working Groups. And as a member of NomCom I can say that Daniel has chaired the NomCom properly and neutrally.
So I understand your concerns about governance, but in terms of neutrality of NomCom everything is sound. The voting members of NomCom are randomly selected, the RIPE NCC Managing Director does not have any influence and the chair performs perfectly and neutrally (and is non-voting).
I am also a current nomcom volunteer. I take Daniel's and Sander's messages to be confirmation that the nomcom process is being followed accurately, and I agree with that assessment. I think that's an important thing for the community to know. However, I think Nick's message highlights some deeper questions about whether the process is the right one for the community, and asks if there are governance concerns that people feel are not adequately addressed in the process we are following. Following the process accurately is a separate question from whether the process is the right one. The nomcom process that we are following is brief and leaves plenty of discretion in its implementation. The nomcom has not yet made a decision and in fact decided not to start substantive discussion about candidates until after RIPE 80. So while it's difficult to imagine that the process can be changed in all the aspects that Nick highlights without the benefit of time travel, never mind the associated question of whether it should, the outcome of the current process is still very much an open question. In other words, there is still plenty of opportunity for people who have governance or any other concerns to make their voices heard and help the nomcom make the best choice for the community. The nomcom is available this week on zoom and all the time by e-mail, details here: https://ripe-nomcom.org/office-hours-during-ripe-80/ nomcom@ripe-nomcom.org I know several if not all of the nomcom volunteers are also following this list. If you care about this (or any other) aspect of the process, please speak up. Nick, thank you for starting this conversation. Joe
On 13 May 2020, at 13:42, Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca> wrote:
Following the process accurately is a separate question from whether the process is the right one.
Indeed. There was considerable discussion about that process while it was being developed. The final version seemed right - well nobody raised substantive concerns about it. We got community consensus for that too. We should also bear in mind that this is the first time the process has been exercised. So there could be some rough edges that need to be tweaked or possible improvements. It could be changed in light of how it’s worked in practice. That might be something for the NomCom to consider once they have done the job of finding our next Dear Leader. And anyway, I think Nick’s concern is not about the process - just that there’s a possibly unhealthy level of NCC involvement in the composition of the NomCom and the list of candidates. [That might be a perception thing since we’ve no reason to doubt the good faith of those NCC-linked individuals. Nick pretty much said that too.] There’s not much we can do about that level of involvement at this time because the appointment process train left the station some time ago.
In other words, there is still plenty of opportunity for people who have governance or any other concerns to make their voices heard and help the nomcom make the best choice for the community.
Indeed. That is by far the most important thing. Tell the Nomcom what you think about the candidates! More info will allow the Nomcom to make a much better decision that gets the widest support from the community.
Dear all,
On 12 May 2020, at 22:46, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote:
Dear all,
Probably like many others, I haven't been following the RIPE Chair nomination process as closely as it has deserved over the last number of months.
At the moment, the lineup looks like this:
- the current RIPE chair is now - with safeguards in place - the RIPE NCC managing director.
- one of the candidates is the previous chair of the RIPE NCC executive board.
- one of the candidates is a current employee of the RIPE NCC.
- the chair of the nom-com is a current employee of the RIPE NCC.
This isn't a statement of lack of confidence in any of the people concerned, either individually or collectively, but it looks troubling from the point of view of governance practices.
Thanks for voicing this Nick. I think it’s an important point to raise and personally I share this concern. For as long as I have been part of this community, we always been extremely responsible and clear about the separation between the RIPE NCC and the RIPE community. RIPE NCC staff members do not participate in the policy development process, they don’t appoint community members to leadership positions (such as WG chairs) and they have also never served as WG chairs whilst still being employed by the RIPE NCC. I have always believed that this has been a very healthy practice, in line with the bottom-up, community-driven decision making in RIPE. The blurring of these lines caught me by surprise and it is something I do not feel is sound and in line with good governance practices. (I am a little less concerned with the RIPE NCC hiring a senior member of the RIPE community as MD, as I see that as a rather distinct and separate process. But it does of course raise questions about how good we are at getting new blood into this community. But that is a different discussion that I will leave for some other time.) On a related note, I am also concerned about the very small number of candidates that has been put forward for the positions of chair and vice chair. And I do think we need to ask ourselves if the process has been robust enough if the long list of candidates is this short. And to be absolutely clear from my side as well, this is in no way a comment on any of the volunteers, staff members or candidates involved. I am grateful for the work that many of the people here have put in and I don’t doubt the good intentions of anyone involved. Thanks, Nurani
In the future, anyone should be able to look back at the nomination process and with full hindsight, feel comfortable that it was sound. I am not completely sure that we are in this position right now.
Nick
I have served as a task force chair of the anti-spoofing-tf and proposed and shepherded major address policies, like ‚rn out fairly‘ while being employed by the RIPE NCC. --- Sent from a handheld device.
On 13. May 2020, at 19:22, Nurani Nimpuno <nurani@nimblebits.net> wrote:
RIPE NCC staff members do not participate in the policy development process, they don’t appoint community members to leadership positions (such as WG chairs) and they have also never served as WG chairs whilst still being employed by the RIPE NCC.
Daniel,
... anti-spoofing-tf ...
I believe you seriously misconstrued the difference between some random task-force and the process of selection of a Chairman of an entity with an approximately 35 million euro budget and 25,000'ish members. I'm with Nick on this one, it "looks troubling". In fact, the optics of this process "suck" and with great respect to Sander and Joe's comment about the nomcom earlier in the email thread, I'm not sure the nomcom has done a good job so far. Just my thoughts. Martin On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 10:36 AM Daniel Karrenberg <dfk@ripe.net> wrote:
I have served as a task force chair of the anti-spoofing-tf and proposed and shepherded major address policies, like ‚rn out fairly‘ while being employed by the RIPE NCC.
--- Sent from a handheld device.
On 13. May 2020, at 19:22, Nurani Nimpuno <nurani@nimblebits.net> wrote:
RIPE NCC staff members do not participate in the policy development process, they don’t appoint community members to leadership positions (such as WG chairs) and they have also never served as WG chairs whilst still being employed by the RIPE NCC.
Hi, On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 10:43:26AM -0700, Martin J. Levy wrote:
I believe you seriously misconstrued the difference between some random task-force and the process of selection of a Chairman of an entity with an approximately 35 million euro budget and 25,000'ish members.
Martin, we're selecting the *RIPE* Chair here, not the RIPE NCC director. RIPE neither has a budget nor "25 000 members". Gert Doering -- 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 13 May 2020, at 18:43, Martin J. Levy <mahtin@mahtin.com> wrote:
I believe you seriously misconstrued the difference between some random task-force and the process of selection of a Chairman of an entity with an approximately 35 million euro budget and 25,000'ish members.
Marty, I believe you’ve seriously misconstrued the difference between the processes for selecting the RIPE NCC and RIPE Chairpeople. :-)
I'm not sure the nomcom has done a good job so far.
IMO they’re doing the best job they can given the circumstances. For instance it’s not their fault the community didn’t nominate a more diverse set of candidates. Or some of those candidates are somehow “tainted” because of their perceived links to the NCC. Anyone who thought the process was defective or the pool of candidates wasn’t good enough has had plenty of opportunities to say so. That hasn't happened AFAICT. It’s probably too late in the day to raise objections now while that process is well under way. That said, I suppose we could rip this up and start again. But there would have to be compelling reasons to take such drastic action. Let’s hear them.
That said, I suppose we could rip this up and start again.
we may not need to. i assume the candidates are reading this list and are appalled by the level of some of this discussion as i and are looking at the door. randy
Third possible downside (Thanks Randy!): We can even end up with even a smaller set... if some of the four nominees say "thanks, but no thanks" now. Carlos On Wed, 13 May 2020, Randy Bush wrote:
That said, I suppose we could rip this up and start again.
we may not need to. i assume the candidates are reading this list and are appalled by the level of some of this discussion as i and are looking at the door.
randy
what would rob say?
randy@psg.com 2020-05-13 11:30 [-0700]:
what would rob say?
+1 to that, Randy! Democracy is an ideal that we strive towards. In a perfect world everyone is equally engaged, everyone has equal ability to participate, and equal interest and opportunity to carry their share of the responsibilities. Unfortunately the world is not ideal. The job of RIPE chair is one of being a facilitator. Not a lobbyist for a certain contingent or opinion. The personal properties we should look for are fairness, the ability to negotiate opinions, to create compromise and to unite, not a strong voice for certain opinions. I wish we had a perfect process. We don't. But to be honest, it's better than many others. Transparency is a crucial point on my assessment scale. I wish we hade a wide selection of excellent candidates. We don't. What we have is a limited set of candidates, all of which, IMHO, are likely to do a very good job if chosen. Responsibility of being RIPE chair is something that only a limited set of peole can (for personal reasons) and will want to carry. I wish we had the same amount of engagement in _participating_ (as in being an active member of a group or committee) in the process as we do in criticising the output. We don't. I didn't quite see 200 ppl turn up for a seat on the NomCom. What we have is a limited set of, IMHO, balanced and reliable persons who try to move forward with limited participation from the community and with a limited set of, again IMHO, balanced and reliable candidates - all according to a process that has been decided upon in democratic ways. And they are very transparent about what's going on. I cannot demand more than that, AT THE VERY LEAST not without putting my name on the committee list of X, or without offering my name as a candidate. I will give my feedback to the Nomcom and support my favourite candidate, and I will give the NomCom the cred the deserve. YMMV. Cheers, /Liman -- #---------------------------------------------------------------------- # Lars-Johan Liman, M.Sc. ! E-mail: liman@netnod.se # Senior Systems Specialist ! Tel: +46 8 - 562 860 12 # Netnod Internet Exchange, Stockholm ! http://www.netnod.se/ #----------------------------------------------------------------------
On Thu, 14 May 2020, Lars-Johan Liman wrote: (...)
I wish we hade a wide selection of excellent candidates. We don't. What we have is a limited set of candidates, all of which, IMHO, are likely to do a very good job if chosen. Responsibility of being RIPE chair is something that only a limited set of peole can (for personal reasons) and will want to carry.
Exactly. Now it crossed my mind it would be good if someone had the idea of nominating you. But unfortunately we're beyond that point.
I wish we had the same amount of engagement in _participating_ (as in being an active member of a group or committee) in the process as we do in criticising the output. We don't. I didn't quite see 200 ppl turn up for a seat on the NomCom.
There was the "criteria", which (at least) i failed to complain about in due time :-) (...)
I will give my feedback to the Nomcom and support my favourite candidate, and I will give the NomCom the cred the deserve.
I will do the same, and i must say i would have liked to see at least three of the NomCom members on the candidate list (which seems to be clearly incompatible...) Regards, Carlos
cfriacas@fccn.pt 2020-05-14 10:07 [+0100]:
Exactly. Now it crossed my mind it would be good if someone had the idea of nominating you. But unfortunately we're beyond that point.
Thank you for your kind words and confidence. Cheers, /Liman
On 14 May 2020, at 09:53, Lars-Johan Liman <liman@netnod.se> wrote:
I wish we hade a wide selection of excellent candidates. We don't. What we have is a limited set of candidates, all of which, IMHO, are likely to do a very good job if chosen. Responsibility of being RIPE chair is something that only a limited set of peole can (for personal reasons) and will want to carry.
Given that circumstances have changed. There is a chance of this being funded by the NCC, it might be a full time role - would we perhaps have had a wider set of candidates if that was part of the call for nominations (at least I can’t find that it was). There seems to be a number of changing parameters during the process - when that occurs I believe we should stop and think if we really need to press on or if we should let the variables settle and start when the full conditions are known. This is not a criticism of anyone - it is just an observation of where we are at the moment. - kurtis -
Given that circumstances have changed. There is a chance of this being funded by the NCC, it might be a full time role - would we perhaps have had a wider set of candidates if that was part of the call for nominations
if the dog had not stopped to pee, he would have caught the rabbit. i think we all wish the circumstances are what they were when we last met. unfortunately, no magic. so we are where we are. i suspect no one in the nomcom process of ill intent or lack of integrity. i believe the candidates are genuine and hope we'll do our best to support the ones chosen. randy
On 14 May 2020, at 16:15, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
Given that circumstances have changed. There is a chance of this being funded by the NCC, it might be a full time role - would we perhaps have had a wider set of candidates if that was part of the call for nominations
if the dog had not stopped to pee, he would have caught the rabbit.
i think we all wish the circumstances are what they were when we last met. unfortunately, no magic.
A change in circumstances is for instance the fact that HPH is no longer a candidate. What Kurtis is pointing to is actually a change to the job description, so definitely a change that might have affected potential and current candidates. Joao
Joao Luis Silva Damas wrote on 14/05/2020 15:22:
What Kurtis is pointing to is actually a change to the job description, so definitely a change that might have affected potential and current candidates.
there were two things: a change to the job description and separately that it may be changing from an unpaid to a paid position. Both these things would have had an impact on who might have been interested in applying because most people cannot afford to take a half- or full-time position like this on an nnon-paid basis. If I read this correctly, both suggestions were made after the nominations pool was closed. This is concerning because potential candidates were implicitly excluded from applying due to changes made after the opportunity for applying was closed off. Nick
On 14 May 2020, at 17:23, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote:
Joao Luis Silva Damas wrote on 14/05/2020 15:22:
What Kurtis is pointing to is actually a change to the job description, so definitely a change that might have affected potential and current candidates.
there were two things: a change to the job description and separately that it may be changing from an unpaid to a paid position.
And possibly also a change from a part-time position, to a full time position. These are all fundamental elements of the job: - Job description - Time commitment required - Remuneration
Both these things would have had an impact on who might have been interested in applying because most people cannot afford to take a half- or full-time position like this on an nnon-paid basis. If I read this correctly, both suggestions were made after the nominations pool was closed.
This is concerning because potential candidates were implicitly excluded from applying due to changes made after the opportunity for applying was closed off.
I think that Kurtis’s suggestion:
I believe we should stop and think if we really need to press on or if we should let the variables settle and start when the full conditions are known.
...is a rather sensible and constructive one. Nurani
Nick
Hallway mode: We can always wish for an ideal process. The real question is: is it worth blowing up the current one? What happens if we do? What does it do to the *people*? The nominees? Our current chair? The NomCom volunteers? Any future volunteers? And last but not least yours truly who has worked his ... off to get that process agreed and is working likewise to see it thru? Exhaustedly yours Daniel --- Sent from a handheld device.
On 14. May 2020, at 17:23, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote:
Joao Luis Silva Damas wrote on 14/05/2020 15:22:
What Kurtis is pointing to is actually a change to the job description, so definitely a change that might have affected potential and current candidates.
there were two things: a change to the job description and separately that it may be changing from an unpaid to a paid position.
Both these things would have had an impact on who might have been interested in applying because most people cannot afford to take a half- or full-time position like this on an nnon-paid basis. If I read this correctly, both suggestions were made after the nominations pool was closed.
This is concerning because potential candidates were implicitly excluded from applying due to changes made after the opportunity for applying was closed off.
Nick
On 14 May 2020, at 15:15, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
so we are where we are. i suspect no one in the nomcom process of ill intent or lack of integrity. i believe the candidates are genuine and hope we'll do our best to support the ones chosen.
I fully agree. Let’s run the current agreed (and long under way!!) process to its conclusion. There will be plenty of time afterwards to conduct a post mortem, take account of the after-the-fact issues that are being raised now, apply lessons learned, etc so that the process is better for the next time. FWIW it will look awful if that process gets derailed now because of concerns that weren’t raised during the long community discussion as the appointment process was developed. Its sets a very ugly and dangerous precedent too.
On 14 May 2020, at 15:15, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
Given that circumstances have changed. There is a chance of this being funded by the NCC, it might be a full time role - would we perhaps have had a wider set of candidates if that was part of the call for nominations
if the dog had not stopped to pee, he would have caught the rabbit.
i think we all wish the circumstances are what they were when we last met. unfortunately, no magic.
so we are where we are. i suspect no one in the nomcom process of ill intent or lack of integrity. i believe the candidates are genuine and hope we'll do our best to support the ones chosen.
I completely agree that the decision lies with the Nomcom and I have all respect for them. But they asked for feedback and then I would hope they would listen to it and make a decision based on the input. I am failing to understand what I sense is questioning of why we are providing input and even if we should provide input. - kurtis -
On 14 May 2020, at 15:43, Kurtis Lindqvist <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se> wrote:
I am failing to understand what I sense is questioning of why we are providing input and even if we should provide input.
I should clarify - I am not saying you are questioning the input, but some of the discussion on the list certainly reads like it. Apologies if this could be read to mean otherwise. - kurtis -
On 14 May 2020, at 16:45, Kurtis Lindqvist wrote:
On 14 May 2020, at 15:43, Kurtis Lindqvist <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se> wrote:
I am failing to understand what I sense is questioning of why we are providing input and even if we should provide input.
I should clarify - I am not saying you are questioning the input, but some of the discussion on the list certainly reads like it. Apologies if this could be read to mean otherwise.
- kurtis -
We are in hallway mode again.
I am failing to understand what I sense is questioning of why we are providing input and even if we should provide input.
I should clarify - I am not saying you are questioning the input, but some of the discussion on the list certainly reads like it. Apologies if this could be read to mean otherwise.
We are in hallway mode again.
i am deeply saddened at the tenor of our discussion on this list. this is not the european cooperative culture which keeps me coming back to ripe after i have left the arin, apnic, ... communities. usually, i would assume it is the medium; email sucks. but we're all old dogs at this, and should know how to use email. and we're all old enough to be beyond second guessing as a sport. do we really feel the process is wrong and we were not heard when we reached consensus on the process? do we really question the integrity of the nomcom? do we really question the integrity of the nominees? i, for one, do not question any of these. sadly though, i am wondering if the tenor and negativity on this list should cause me to rethink my participation. randy
________________________________ From: ripe-chair-discuss <ripe-chair-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Sent: Thursday 14 May 2020 16:16 To: Daniel Karrenberg <dfk@ripe.net> Cc: ripe-chair-discuss@ripe.net <ripe-chair-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [ripe-chair-discuss] Chair nomination process CAUTION[External]: This email originated from outside of the organisation. Do not click on links or open the attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe.
I am failing to understand what I sense is questioning of why we are providing input and even if we should provide input.
I should clarify - I am not saying you are questioning the input, but some of the discussion on the list certainly reads like it. Apologies if this could be read to mean otherwise.
We are in hallway mode again.
i am deeply saddened at the tenor of our discussion on this list. this is not the european cooperative culture which keeps me coming back to ripe after i have left the arin, apnic, ... communities.
usually, i would assume it is the medium; email sucks. but we're all old dogs at this, and should know how to use email. and we're all old enough to be beyond second guessing as a sport.
do we really feel the process is wrong and we were not heard when we reached consensus on the process? do we really question the integrity of the nomcom? do we really question the integrity of the nominees?
i, for one, do not question any of these. sadly though, i am wondering if the tenor and negativity on this list should cause me to rethink my participation.
Thank you for this, Randy. I've been reading all of this since Nick's first email and I'm honestly very surprised by it all. This has been one of the most community discussed and approved processes I've experienced in my time involved with RIPE and to have people suddenly, at this late stage say, "Well, I wasn't paying attention, but I have some concerns, which aren't about the people involved, but..." Randy asks excellent questions. I think we have a process which worked its way through the Community incredibly publicly. We have a good pool of candidates. Sure, I'd love if it was bigger, but that requires people to volunteer, this doesn't happen magically. I'm really confused what people are asking for here, and I would utterly reject the notion that we suddenly shout stop. I continue to support the very collaborative work that I see the NomCom doing. I continue to support the process that we, as a Community, agreed to, and I look forward to work with whomever the NomCom chooses as our Chair and Vice-Chair. We will have a review of this process and we will all be able to suggest improvements and figure out how to make everything better for next time, but right now, I'm more than happy with what's happening right now and will happen over the next 6 - 8 weeks. Thanks, Brian Brian Nisbet Service Operations Manager HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland +35316609040 brian.nisbet@heanet.ie www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270
On 14 May 2020, at 16:49, Daniel Karrenberg <dfk@ripe.net> wrote:
On 14 May 2020, at 16:45, Kurtis Lindqvist wrote:
On 14 May 2020, at 15:43, Kurtis Lindqvist <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se> wrote:
I am failing to understand what I sense is questioning of why we are providing input and even if we should provide input.
I should clarify - I am not saying you are questioning the input, but some of the discussion on the list certainly reads like it. Apologies if this could be read to mean otherwise.
- kurtis -
We are in hallway mode again.
I’m rather exhausted at the end of an intensive week, trying to catch up on my day job and trying to recover from an intense RIPE meeting. (Which was excellent btw. I’m am hugely impressed with what you managed to pull off, the RIPE NCC. Well done to the whole team!) So I’m afraid I don’t have any more energy to pour into this discussion today. Mailing lists are such a bad medium and virtual meetings don’t provide room for those informal, bridging discussions, which (at least for me) help understanding the other party’ perspective. (Perhaps others are better at mailing list discussions, but I find them very difficult to engage in in a good way, especially whilst also doing my day job.) But before I leave this discussion before the weekend, I just want to say that I am acutely aware of how uncomfortable this discussion probably is to the four nominees. I sincerely hope that concerns voiced about a process, is not interpreted as veiled criticism of the candidates produced by that process. So, I think it’s worth repeating from my side, that my concerns are in no way with the competence of the four nominees involved. IMO, the candidates are all competent people of good standing in this community, for whom I have nothing but respect for. I know a few people have asked “ok so now what?”. There have been a few suggestions, but we are clearly not in agreement there yet. And I also think it is valuable to conclude the discussion about the problem statement, before moving into solution space. But that is my view. I know others want to move quicker. I am also highly conscious of the fact that there is such a small amount of people active in many of our discussions. Sure, you can always say that others can speak up if they want to. But if I take up that spot in the queue to the microphone, other people won’t stand up and share their view. So I take this opportunity to step back and I encourage others in this community to voice their opinon. TGIF, Nurani
On 14 May 2020, at 15:43, Kurtis Lindqvist <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se> wrote:
I am failing to understand what I sense is questioning of why we are providing input and even if we should provide input.
Kurtis, there seems to be a huge disconnect here. Nobody’s "questioning of why we are providing input and even if we should provide input to the Nomcom". Well, not that I can see. AFAICT some people are raising questions about the process and/or perceived conflicts of interest in the NomCom. These are inappropriate at this time IMO because they should have been raised when the process was developed or when the composition of the NomCom was announced. They weren’t. Those who have these concerns are welcome to give their input to the NomCom where I’m sure it will get the proper care and attention. Carrying on that discussion here is probably not going to help. So we have essentially two choices; 1) Let the current process run to a conclusion and trust all those involved to do the right thing wrt actual or perceived conflicts of interest. And just suck it up if the pool of candidates or NomCom composition is not as broad/diverse as some would like. 2) Blow up the current process and start from scratch. Which could well take beyond the heat death of the universe to resolve. And no doubt wipe out any goodwill from potential candidates and Nomcom members => an even worse outcome next time around. What’s it to be? Now OK, how the current process has worked out is not to everyone’s taste. But it’s good enough. [The perfect is the enemy of the good remember.] The process can of course be improved or amended in light of what we’ve found after it got used for the first time. That analysis and refinement should get done once the process has completed - unless of course it implodes beforehand.
On Wed, 13 May 2020, Jim Reid wrote: (...)
That said, I suppose we could rip this up and start again. But there would have to be compelling reasons to take such drastic action. Let?s hear them.
Hi, I see two downsides about restarting: 1) it doesn't follow the defined process 2) HPH would possibly become the interim-interim-Chair. :-) Regards, Carlos
are folk who are 'commenting' here also talking with the nomcom, giving their feedback about candidate qualifications and preferences? you should be. randy
Hi Randy, All, I honestly didn't like the criteria (attendance of 3 out of the last 5 meetings) to be eligible to be included in the draw of volunteers. Candidate qualifications, probably all four in the (short)list are fully qualified for the role(s). Preferences, of course, everyone has their own. :-) Regards, Carlos On Wed, 13 May 2020, Randy Bush wrote:
are folk who are 'commenting' here also talking with the nomcom, giving their feedback about candidate qualifications and preferences? you should be.
randy
I honestly didn't like the criteria (attendance of 3 out of the last 5 meetings) to be eligible to be included in the draw of volunteers.
that discussion was last year randy
On 13. May 2020, at 21:20, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
I honestly didn't like the criteria (attendance of 3 out of the last 5 meetings) to be eligible to be included in the draw of volunteers.
that discussion was last year
randy
... and will be again next year when we evaluate based on the NomCom final report. But now is not the time.
When (re)reading my contributions last *night* please consider them to be made in public, but in an informal context such as the hallway or bar which we are sorely missing this meeting. I wish I was in Berlin with all of you. Daniel --- Sent from a handheld device.
On 13. May 2020, at 21:24, Daniel Karrenberg <dfk@ripe.net> wrote:
On 13. May 2020, at 21:20, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
I honestly didn't like the criteria (attendance of 3 out of the last 5 meetings) to be eligible to be included in the draw of volunteers.
that discussion was last year
randy
... and will be again next year when we evaluate based on the NomCom final report. But now is not the time.
On Thu, 14 May 2020, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
When (re)reading my contributions last *night* please consider them to be made in public, but in an informal context such as the hallway or bar which we are sorely missing this meeting.
I wish I was in Berlin with all of you.
Hi, I wasn't planning to go to Berlin anyway (great city, had a great time last time i was there!), but i also wished to see some of the faces in person again, and without a (virus prevention) facemask. :-) Thanks. Regards, Carlos
Daniel
--- Sent from a handheld device.
On 13. May 2020, at 21:24, Daniel Karrenberg <dfk@ripe.net> wrote:
On 13. May 2020, at 21:20, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
I honestly didn't like the criteria (attendance of 3 out of the last 5 meetings) to be eligible to be included in the draw of volunteers.
that discussion was last year
randy
... and will be again next year when we evaluate based on the NomCom final report. But now is not the time.
Randy Bush writes:
are folk who are 'commenting' here also talking with the nomcom, giving their feedback about candidate qualifications and preferences? you should be.
And I cannot help noticing that complaining about the process closed even before the noncom came into to exist. jaap
Jim, Marty, I believe you’ve seriously misconstrued the difference between the
processes for selecting the RIPE NCC and RIPE Chairpeople. :-)
(It's "Martin" and never "Marty"). I read the response from Gert and Daniel. Please realize that in the big scheme of things, I don't care about the difference between RIPE and RIPE NCC … kinda like I don't care about the difference between PA and PI space. Both of those differences are totally made-up constructs. But I digress. You asked: That said, I suppose we could rip this up and start again. But there would
have to be compelling reasons to take such drastic action. Let’s hear them.
So let me quote you back to you ... IMO they’re doing the best job they can given the circumstances. As this is a 100% soft process (i.e. you're not rack-n-stacking equipment in a datacenter), I think the "circumstances" are immaterial. For instance it’s not their fault the community didn’t nominate a more
diverse set of candidates.
Correct - not a diverse bunch. I believe nearly all nomcoms have the power to say "sorry, we must reopen the process". Or some of those candidates are somehow “tainted” because of their
perceived links to the NCC.
Your words; but I agree (except I maybe would remove the word "perceived"). Anyone who thought the process was defective or the pool of candidates
wasn’t good enough has had plenty of opportunities to say so.
I'll happily say it now ... it's a poor pool of candidates. That hasn't happened AFAICT. It’s probably too late in the day to raise
objections now while that process is well under way.
Is it? If so, why are we discussing this and why does this mailing list exist? I, for one, simply don't like how this looks. I believe any well-minded noncom would also realize that and correct themselves and reset the process. Martin On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 11:10 AM Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> wrote:
On 13 May 2020, at 18:43, Martin J. Levy <mahtin@mahtin.com> wrote:
I believe you seriously misconstrued the difference between some random task-force and the process of selection of a Chairman of an entity with an approximately 35 million euro budget and 25,000'ish members.
Marty, I believe you’ve seriously misconstrued the difference between the processes for selecting the RIPE NCC and RIPE Chairpeople. :-)
I'm not sure the nomcom has done a good job so far.
IMO they’re doing the best job they can given the circumstances. For instance it’s not their fault the community didn’t nominate a more diverse set of candidates. Or some of those candidates are somehow “tainted” because of their perceived links to the NCC. Anyone who thought the process was defective or the pool of candidates wasn’t good enough has had plenty of opportunities to say so. That hasn't happened AFAICT. It’s probably too late in the day to raise objections now while that process is well under way.
That said, I suppose we could rip this up and start again. But there would have to be compelling reasons to take such drastic action. Let’s hear them.
On 13/05/2020 19:48, Martin J. Levy wrote:
I'll happily say it now ... it's a poor pool of candidates.
I'm hoping you didn't mean that it's a pool of poor candidates Nigel
On 13 May 2020, at 23:39, Nigel Titley <nigel@titley.com> wrote:
On 13/05/2020 19:48, Martin J. Levy wrote:
I'll happily say it now ... it's a poor pool of candidates.
I'm hoping you didn't mean that it's a pool of poor candidates
That would be making this personal which I don’t believe is anywhere close where Nick was expressing concerns and, dare I say, a notch below what we are used from a beacon like you. And while I am here, I have to agree with Nick’s concerns. While almost each individual piece looks reasonable by itself, the aggregate has vast room for improvement. I am aware of people who just decided not to get involved upon seeing the landscape and that, for me, is a sign of trouble (feel free to shrug this aside by inserting standard response “I can’t make other people do things that are up to them”) The process itself is sufficiently documented and was developed in public (*) but the combined result certainly has a created a component of uneasiness, which is what I feel and what I felt Nick was getting at. Just my (outsider) 2 cents Joao (*) some time in the future one could debate the difference between a public process and an open one.
On 13 May 2020, at 18:22, Nurani Nimpuno <nurani@nimblebits.net> wrote:
On a related note, I am also concerned about the very small number of candidates that has been put forward for the positions of chair and vice chair. And I do think we need to ask ourselves if the process has been robust enough if the long list of candidates is this short.
While a short list of candidates is not ideal Nurani, the metric here should be quality, not quantity. Choosing from a small pool of excellent candidates surely has to be better than picking from a large pool filled with dross or make-weights. YMMV. You’ve also got to consider the practicalities. The most desirable candidates need to have several key attributes. IMO these include their standing in the community, a deep understanding of RIPE’s values and processes, an inexhaustible ability to cat-herd, diplomacy, patience, leadership, fairness, integrity, time/energy to do the job, etc, etc. There simply aren’t that many people around who have enough of these qualities. I think that goes a long way to explaining why the NomCom ended up with so few candidates to consider.
On Wed, 13 May 2020, Jim Reid wrote: (...)
You?ve also got to consider the practicalities. The most desirable candidates need to have several key attributes. IMO these include their standing in the community, a deep understanding of RIPE?s values and processes, an inexhaustible ability to cat-herd, diplomacy, patience, leadership, fairness, integrity, time/energy to do the job, etc, etc. There simply aren?t that many people around who have enough of these qualities. I think that goes a long way to explaining why the NomCom ended up with so few candidates to consider.
Hi, I honestly prefer to believe there were more, but the other ones that don't show up on the (short)list, declined to be on the list. Regards, Carlos
Hi Nurani, On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 07:22:39PM +0200, Nurani Nimpuno wrote:
For as long as I have been part of this community, we always been extremely responsible and clear about the separation between the RIPE NCC and the RIPE community. RIPE NCC staff members do not participate in the policy development process,
Yes and no to that. We have been tried to be explicit in making that distinction clear (and constantly failed, people use "RIPE" and "RIPE NCC" interchangeably, and nobody really seems to mind), but nothing in the PDP says "a NCC employee is not allowed to have an opinion on policy and voice that". The PDP is quite clear here. I think more important than "is someone with an opinion about policy a NCC employee or not" is "be very *transparent* in policy making" - so, discussions on the public lists, in the (public and archived) meeting, and so on, following the agreed PDP, with an appeals process if people suspect something shady. And I think we do achieve that transparency. Gert Doering -- nomcom member, and involved in policy making for a while -- 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 Gert,
On 13 May 2020, at 20:12, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi Nurani,
On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 07:22:39PM +0200, Nurani Nimpuno wrote:
For as long as I have been part of this community, we always been extremely responsible and clear about the separation between the RIPE NCC and the RIPE community. RIPE NCC staff members do not participate in the policy development process,
Yes and no to that. We have been tried to be explicit in making that distinction clear (and constantly failed, people use "RIPE" and "RIPE NCC" interchangeably, and nobody really seems to mind),
Weeeell, people do get confused, yes. But both RIPE and in particular the RIPE NCC always try to be crystal clear about the distinction between the two.
but nothing in the PDP says "a NCC employee is not allowed to have an opinion on policy and voice that". The PDP is quite clear here.
I think more important than "is someone with an opinion about policy a NCC employee or not" is "be very *transparent* in policy making”
I disagree with that assessment. If you want to claim that the policy process is truly community driven and you want to avoid any accusations of it being controlled by those who allocate the IP resources, then this principle sits at the heart of our community values.
- so, discussions on the public lists, in the (public and archived) meeting, and so on, following the agreed PDP, with an appeals process if people suspect something shady. And I think we do achieve that transparency.
For the record, I do as well. Mostly. :) Nurani
Gert Doering -- nomcom member, and involved in policy making for a while -- 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 Nurani, On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 10:56:26AM +0200, Nurani Nimpuno wrote:
On 13 May 2020, at 20:12, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
but nothing in the PDP says "a NCC employee is not allowed to have an opinion on policy and voice that". The PDP is quite clear here.
I think more important than "is someone with an opinion about policy a NCC employee or not" is "be very *transparent* in policy making???
I disagree with that assessment.
If you want to claim that the policy process is truly community driven and you want to avoid any accusations of it being controlled by those who allocate the IP resources, then this principle sits at the heart of our community values.
Participation by "the wider RIPE community" hasn't been as overwhelming as one could hope for. As a second-best pick, I go for "informed input from people with experience in the field, made transparent to everyone interested in what's happening". So, yes, I think input from RIR staff can be very valuable to policy building - the community is watching, and I fully trust the community to call "STOP!" if something questionable is proposed. If we do think, as RIPE community, that RIR employees should not be permitted to participate in policy making, we need to adjust the PDP to actually say so. Gert Doering -- 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 14 May 2020, at 10:11, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
So, yes, I think input from RIR staff can be very valuable to policy building - the community is watching, and I fully trust the community to call "STOP!" if something questionable is proposed.
If we do think, as RIPE community, that RIR employees should not be permitted to participate in policy making, we need to adjust the PDP to actually say so.
I think they should be allowed to provide input to the PDP but not run or control it. Those are two different factors. We have in the past also (always?) made WG Chairs who become NCC employees step down. From memory I think that happened for both when James Aldridge and Maco Hogewoning joined the RIPE NCC. Daniel raises the issue that there never was a encoded separation between the RIPE NCC and RIPE. I would have to go and check to what extent it was encoded, but for almost all WG Chairs meetings I have attended it has certainly been clear, and if we don’t believe this to be the case any more or even that it shouldn’t be - then I question why we need a RIPE chair at all? Surely this role then just become a function of the NCC? If we believe that there is no distinction between RIPE NCC and RIPE I would suggest we cut out a lot of red tape and run RIPE as part of the RIPE NCC existing structures. If we DO believe there is separation between RIPE and the RIPE NCC then we need to ensure that is carried properly in the selection of the RIPE Chair. This is not a view on any of the candidates it is a view on what we see RIPE itself being. I would argue that we (well all least I) didn’t foresee this complexity arising when reviewing the RIPE chair selection process, and I now wish I had. - kurtis -
On 14 May 2020, at 15:41, Kurtis Lindqvist wrote:
On 14 May 2020, at 10:11, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
So, yes, I think input from RIR staff can be very valuable to policy building - the community is watching, and I fully trust the community to call "STOP!" if something questionable is proposed.
If we do think, as RIPE community, that RIR employees should not be permitted to participate in policy making, we need to adjust the PDP to actually say so.
I think they should be allowed to provide input to the PDP but not run or control it. Those are two different factors. We have in the past also (always?) made WG Chairs who become NCC employees step down. From memory I think that happened for both when James Aldridge and Maco Hogewoning joined the RIPE NCC.
Daniel raises the issue that there never was a encoded separation between the RIPE NCC and RIPE. I would have to go and check to what extent it was encoded, but for almost all WG Chairs meetings I have attended it has certainly been clear, and if we don’t believe this to be the case any more or even that it shouldn’t be - then I question why we need a RIPE chair at all? Surely this role then just become a function of the NCC? If we believe that there is no distinction between RIPE NCC and RIPE I would suggest we cut out a lot of red tape and run RIPE as part of the RIPE NCC existing structures.
Would it not be possible for Mirjam to resign from the RIPE NCC once she is selected just as well. Or is she tainted for life?
If we DO believe there is separation between RIPE and the RIPE NCC then we need to ensure that is carried properly in the selection of the RIPE Chair. This is not a view on any of the candidates it is a view on what we see RIPE itself being. I would argue that we (well all least I) didn’t foresee this complexity arising when reviewing the RIPE chair selection process, and I now wish I had.
- kurtis -
On 14 May 2020, at 14:52, Daniel Karrenberg <dfk@ripe.net> wrote:
Would it not be possible for Mirjam to resign from the RIPE NCC once she is selected just as well. Or is she tainted for life?
First of all I think we should avoid the use of “tainted” and secondly I was trying to keep the arguments on a principe level and discussed the separation of RIPE and RIPE NCC, not any individual circumstances around candidates. The Nomcom has asked for feedback and I was trying to provide mine here as I have also done in private to the Nomcom. To answer your question - I am assuming by it that we have made the assumption that we want to keep separation between RIPE NCC and RIPE. If so, obviously no-one is associated with an ex-employer for life. In governance, both public and private it is commonly assumed that for certain (at least senior) roles you will keep a distance in time between roles to ensure that real or perceived conflict of interest is avoided. How long this time should (or none) can be debated. - kurtis -
On 14 May 2020, at 15:41, Kurtis Lindqvist wrote:
We have in the past also (always?) made WG Chairs who become NCC employees step down. From memory I think that happened for both when James Aldridge and Maco Hogewoning joined the RIPE NCC.
IIRC Marco stared working at the NCC in Jan. 2011 and stepped down as a WG chair in Nov. 2014.
Nurani, Just to get the premises right: you keep claiming that a Spanish wall between RIPE and the RIPE NCC is either codified in or processes or our practice. As Gert pointed out the former is not the case. I have pointed out anecdotal evidence that the latter is not a tradition either. So claiming that this ‘sits at the heart of our community values’ appears far fetched to me. About whether such a Spanish wall is desirable our opinions obviously differ. And I recognise that you are not alone. So I suggest that you organise to get such a Spanish wall codified in our processes and we will have that discussion. You have said ‘And to be absolutely clear from my side as well, this is in no way a comment on any of the volunteers, staff members or candidates involved.’ Can I take this to mean that we can carry on with the running process? Or do I detect a desire to influence the running process? If the latter is true then the NomCom will need concrete suggestions with significant support. As far as the running process is concerned the NomCom has meticulously adhered to ripe-727/728. So far we have heard a lot of positive input about the nominees. The NomCom has already talked about conflicts of interest and dependencies in principle. We have not discussed particular nominees yet. I am sure that the NomCom will consider these aspects carefully once we discuss candidate selection; and that includes appearances too. Daniel (speaking for himself and himself only)
On 14 May 2020, at 11:59, Daniel Karrenberg <dfk@ripe.net> wrote:
About whether such a Spanish wall
You lost me, what is a Spanish wall? First I hear the term and google is not being helpful Joao
It is more a Mexican / USA wall.. There are plans to build it and maintain it.. but there are holes and ways around it .. and things slip through anyway ... Any nobody wants to pay for it... Just kidding __ Erik On 14/05/2020, 12:16, "ripe-chair-discuss on behalf of Joao Luis Silva Damas" <ripe-chair-discuss-bounces@ripe.net on behalf of joao@bondis.org> wrote: > On 14 May 2020, at 11:59, Daniel Karrenberg <dfk@ripe.net> wrote: > > About whether such a Spanish wall You lost me, what is a Spanish wall? First I hear the term and google is not being helpful Joao
On 14 May 2020, at 12:16, Joao Luis Silva Damas wrote:
You lost me, what is a Spanish wall? First I hear the term and google is not being helpful
A Germanism that escaped. In English it is a ‘Chinese Wall’. Daniel
Thank you, that was my intuition but better be sure (and learn something new along the way)
On 14 May 2020, at 12:21, Daniel Karrenberg <dfk@ripe.net> wrote:
On 14 May 2020, at 12:16, Joao Luis Silva Damas wrote:
You lost me, what is a Spanish wall? First I hear the term and google is not being helpful
A Germanism that escaped. In English it is a ‘Chinese Wall’.
Daniel
You lost me, what is a Spanish wall? First I hear the term and google is not being helpful A Germanism that escaped. In English it is a ‘Chinese Wall’.
< i will have gotten a few nations incorrect > i was once in an international academic meeting, and an american said "that's greek to me." there was a greek, and they said "no, that's chinese to me." the old professor from nanking said "no that's ..." well you get it. so of course we canvassed the whole group and found two complete rings and some outliers. randy
On 14 May 2020, at 11:16, Joao Luis Silva Damas <joao@bondis.org> wrote:
You lost me, what is a Spanish wall? First I hear the term and google is not being helpful
I expect it’s the same thing as a Chinese wall: Chinese wall noun (often in pl) The strict demarcation barrier which must exist between eg the corporate finance and investment advisory departments of a bank, etc in order to ensure that privileged information available to one department is not available to the other and so prevent conflicts of interest from arising
participants (17)
-
Brian Nisbet -
Carlos Friaças -
Daniel Karrenberg -
Erik Bais -
Gert Doering -
Jaap Akkerhuis -
Jim Reid -
Joao Luis Silva Damas -
Joe Abley -
Kurtis Lindqvist -
Lars-Johan Liman -
Martin J. Levy -
Nick Hilliard -
Nigel Titley -
Nurani Nimpuno -
Randy Bush -
Sander Steffann