Hi,

Niall O’Reilly wrote:

> /ripe-ncc-staff-participation-in-the-ripe-community-draft-v2

I like that there is a document draft and I like that it is short, thank you. :-)

We need to make sure that it is not too short.

The guiding principle that RIPE NCC team members are simultaneously valued community members is correct and has my full support.

It is appropriate too that NCC team members disclose their position to the NCC when providing guidance in a RIPE community setting (p2).

The document must emphasise the need for RIPE NCC staff to proactively manage their conflict of interest risks when engaging with the community.  Particularly so in situations where a RIPE community working group, task force, or committee undertakes projects with activity plan, budgets, or headcount implications. It is evident that individuals involved in authoring such activity plans or holding positions within the NCC management cannot maintain the arm's length principle in various community activities. This directly contradicts the wording outlined in principle 1 (participate on same terms).

As a responsible community, it is incumbent upon us to safeguard NCC staff from potential conflicts of interest by defining clear protocols for how such situations are considered and managed when NCC staff participate in RIPE activities with activity plans, budgets, or hiring decisions.  Can this be captured in the lovely succinct way that you have approached the first two drafts?

I recognise your effort in putting together this document, it is not a simple undertaking to author governance material.

Andy Davidson