Hi, On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 02:38:32PM +0000, Niall O'Reilly wrote:
Please let us know what you think, in sufficient numbers so that we can understand whether the draft enjoys community consensus.
I find v3 a reasonable description of the roles and processes of (formal) task forces, and what to expect and not to expect. I explicitly disagree with Jordi's repeated comments about the requirement for a non-discriminatory participation. TFs are not something to be voted in, or to govern anything, but to get a job done - and due to human nature, you'll have volunteer groups that are incompatible. Force-permitting someone "in" that the other volunteers refuse to work with might look good on paper ("yay, we're so non-discriminatory") but will just break the intent "get work done". We shouldn't overvalue the "task force" stamp on a group of volunteers - it's a formal vehicle to request support from the RIPE NCC, and to agree on "this is the work we set out to do" (and volunteers are expected to have time to do so). This does not mean any *other* group of volunteers couldn't just sit together, get work done, and bring the resulting document up to a working group for larger consensus and publishing as a RIPE document (like, the documents coming out of the IPv6 WG). So, no, task forces in general are not a vehicle of exclusivity that would need all this hubbub about full inclusion. 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