Re: [ripe-list] Discussion on financial support for RIPE Chair
Alexander Isavnin wrote:
Support Option 2.
Option 1 could move RIPE Community to uncomfortable lands of formalized organization, with unspecific for responsibilities Community
Option 3 might cause conflicts of interests, making RIPE Chair dependent on a bad will of NCC's board or management.
Before leaping to conclusions, it might be worth kicking around ideas for how the risks identified in Option 3 might be mitigated. I agree think the risk of loss of independence is a valid concern we should be wary about. I wouldn't agree with someone who was casually dismissive of this as an issue. But Option 3 doesn't *have* to be "the RIPE Chair is employed at will by, and under the direct instructions of, the NCC". With care and thought, I am confident we can do better than that. The main reason why the RIPE Community cannot employ its own Chair is that the Community does not exist as a legal person and so cannot form a contract, either with the Chair or the NCC. However, the Chair *will* be a legal person, and can form (and would) have a contract with the NCC. The terms of this contract could in principle be designed to protect his independence from the NCC, and accountability to the RIPE community. The Chair will himself have an interest defending those terms. For example, perhaps the contract could provide that it may not be terminated by the NCC unless and until some RIPE community process has removed the person as Chair [*]. That might still require us to be a bit more clear what the process in the RIPE community for removal of the Chair should be, but it moves the locus of work to be done back into the community. [*] There may be legal quibbles e.g. "you can't have a commitment to employ someone for an infinite period", but there can be workarounds: make it a fixed term contract of (say) fifty years, which could be terminated early but only under the following conditions...[by the Chair himself, by the RIPE community]. -- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/ London Internet Exchange Ltd Monument Place, 24 Monument Street London EC3R 8AJ Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
I too am inclined towards a variant of option 3. - option 1 to me is simply too much heavyweight structure for a single- person role. - option 2 I feel is exclusionary to otherwise well-matched candidates, and places the role at risk of capture by employer vested interests. On 02/20/18 06:25, Malcolm Hutty wrote:
Before leaping to conclusions, it might be worth kicking around ideas for how the risks identified in Option 3 might be mitigated.
Indeed, there ought to be models that would uphold the RIPE Chair's autonomy and policy/editorial independence while still being funded by the RIPE NCC. This might involve funding via long-term grant/endowment commitments rather than annual budget revenue stream-derived salary, fixed-term appointment, and/or other arms-length approaches along Malcolm's suggestions. It's very possible other organisations (not necessarily in our sector) have already figured out models for such arrangements, and it may be a good idea to research these for appropriate approaches. Keith
I agree think the risk of loss of independence is a valid concern we should be wary about. I wouldn't agree with someone who was casually dismissive of this as an issue. But Option 3 doesn't *have* to be "the RIPE Chair is employed at will by, and under the direct instructions of, the NCC". With care and thought, I am confident we can do better than that.
The terms of this contract could in principle be designed to protect his independence from the NCC, and accountability to the RIPE community. The Chair will himself have an interest defending those terms.
For example, perhaps the contract could provide that it may not be terminated by the NCC unless and until some RIPE community process has removed the person as Chair [*]. That might still require us to be a bit more clear what the process in the RIPE community for removal of the Chair should be, but it moves the locus of work to be done back into the community.
If we have options 1 or 3, we are saying that the RIPE chair is a full-time position -- is that a statement we're all comfortable making? (Hans Petter, I would love to hear your view about how much time your responsibilities take, throughout the year) I think #1 would entail a large raising of RIPE meeting rates (which are highly subsidized by the NCC) to pay for the full time chair and part time meeting organizers, etc. I love RIPE and how it feels more about learning and less commercial than NANOG (I pay my own way to come out to RIPE, wake up at 6am for PC calls, etc because I feel that this community is important!). With #1 we would have to find a large money stream, which would probably mean lots of sponsorship[1] and corporate involvement With #3, would there be any legal issues with the employment? I know pretty much nothing of Dutch labor law - I'm guessing RIPE NCC would know a lot more! Any weirdnesses with country of residence while getting paid by a Dutch entity ? Leslie [1] I want to reiterate that I am very happy with the level of sponsorship right now! The sponsors feel like a natural piece of the meeting -- they are visible, but not intrusive. It makes me more comfortable engaging with them, rather than if there were 20 sponsor tables all vying for my attention. On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 7:21 AM, Keith Mitchell <keith@smoti.org> wrote:
I too am inclined towards a variant of option 3.
- option 1 to me is simply too much heavyweight structure for a single- person role.
- option 2 I feel is exclusionary to otherwise well-matched candidates, and places the role at risk of capture by employer vested interests.
On 02/20/18 06:25, Malcolm Hutty wrote:
Before leaping to conclusions, it might be worth kicking around ideas for how the risks identified in Option 3 might be mitigated.
Indeed, there ought to be models that would uphold the RIPE Chair's autonomy and policy/editorial independence while still being funded by the RIPE NCC. This might involve funding via long-term grant/endowment commitments rather than annual budget revenue stream-derived salary, fixed-term appointment, and/or other arms-length approaches along Malcolm's suggestions.
It's very possible other organisations (not necessarily in our sector) have already figured out models for such arrangements, and it may be a good idea to research these for appropriate approaches.
Keith
I agree think the risk of loss of independence is a valid concern we should be wary about. I wouldn't agree with someone who was casually dismissive of this as an issue. But Option 3 doesn't *have* to be "the RIPE Chair is employed at will by, and under the direct instructions of, the NCC". With care and thought, I am confident we can do better than that.
The terms of this contract could in principle be designed to protect his independence from the NCC, and accountability to the RIPE community. The Chair will himself have an interest defending those terms.
For example, perhaps the contract could provide that it may not be terminated by the NCC unless and until some RIPE community process has removed the person as Chair [*]. That might still require us to be a bit more clear what the process in the RIPE community for removal of the Chair should be, but it moves the locus of work to be done back into the community.
participants (3)
-
Keith Mitchell -
Leslie -
Malcolm Hutty