excuses for my response to provocations in the list yesterday
Hi all, Yesterday I should have reacted in a different way, ignoring the provocations, so I want to ask excuses for that. I think we (all) in those situations must privately ask the chairs to enforce he AUP and call to the order to the authors of inappropriate postings. I need to make clear that I still believe (not just this time) it is wrong to issue any subtle "warning" (or whatever you want to call it) to participants in any discussion. We, as it can't be other way, can disagree if a proposal, idea, problem statement, solution, is good or bad; that's it and that's what the discussion should be about. We are all free to ignore/delete emails from anyone if we believe that he/she is sending too many emails, but those emails, in general, except in clear cases that we all remember for spam, publicity of electoral candidates, etc., need to be allowed without restriction, because people are discussing about something that is in the scope of the list (apply this to any WG list as well). If we believe that something is out of the scope, we should call the chairs to tell to the poster, but not do ourselves and even less, do what I did: responding to them. If we look into previous discussions, same people that attacked me yesterday has sent (many times) more than "n" emails. So, if we want to define that, let's have it in the PDP or AUP, so it applies to everybody in the same way. My response to their provocation is only upsetting more people from the community against my proposals or ideas, so I'm helping them to achieve what they wanted: to ruin the discussion. Is not an excuse, but you also need to understand that this is not a consequence of a few minutes of "bad energy" from my side, but also a cumulus of private emails (sometimes from the same people that exposed themselves in the list), and attacks in different lists (often from the same people as well), such as mentions to the "Spanish Inquisition", among others. I tend to not overreact to those, even ignore them, or answer politely, but it seems that I should instead, report every single case to the chairs and avoid forming "dark clouds" and then having "storms". I'm not alone on this (and I got a couple of people writing me about that this time). We discussed long time ago, I think it was in the Diversity TF, how people take advantage of better knowledge of English to abuse and attack non-native speaker ones (or people that is not so fluent). We have mention about the lack of participation. Those subtle attacks definitively don't help to improve that, on the other way around, some people get scared, overreact, or go away. It is even more sad that some of those provocations come from people that are (or have been) chairs of WGs and I think they must be exemplary. It looks like some of them believe they are kings. Maybe one more thing to change in the PDP is a maximum number of terms to avoid this. I think also sanctions of the AUP should be stricter in those cases and this shows that also we are missing in the PDP a procedure for recalling chairs. For those that aren’t aware, this just happened in AFRINIC (a Recall Committee has decided that both cochairs are recalled with immediate effect, in short because they violated the PDP and took decisions or attributions beyond what is set in the PDP). Regards, Jordi @jordipalet ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
Hi, Please see inline. On Wed, 10 Feb 2021, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list wrote:
Hi all,
<snip>
(...)
It is even more sad that some of those provocations come from people that are (or have been) chairs of WGs and I think they must be exemplary. It looks like some of them believe they are kings. Maybe one more thing to change in the PDP is a maximum number of terms to avoid this.
I completely support this! 2 or 3 terms, plus a "freeze period" (1 term? 1 year?) to avoid cases where a chair "jumps" to another WG.
I think also sanctions of the AUP should be stricter in those cases and this shows that also we are missing in the PDP a procedure for recalling chairs. For those that aren?t aware, this just happened in AFRINIC (a Recall Committee has decided that both cochairs are recalled with immediate effect, in short because they violated the PDP and took decisions or attributions beyond what is set in the PDP).
I think the general idea is not to have frequent "impeachments", but establish a process where a WG chair change (against his/her own will, when they violate the PDP) isn't halted at some point by one of its friends. Regards, Carlos
On 10/02/2021 12:27, Carlos Friaças via ripe-list wrote:
2 or 3 terms, plus a "freeze period" (1 term? 1 year?) to avoid cases where a chair "jumps" to another WG.
I would completely support this if there weren't already problems in getting enough people to take on the extra workload of becoming a WG chair. Nigel
Hi Nigel, I've the feeling that in part, the lack of volunteers is due to the fact that existing ones can continue in perpetuity. Also the details that we have in some cases 3 WG chairs and that means 1 less chair available for another WG. Note that I think that, considering that in other RIRs, there is a "single" WG for what it really is more important (PDP) and they are able to cope with the workload, this could also be the same here. May be a model where we have a single "policy WG" (all the policies discussed in the same list) and the other WG for non-policy discussions. If we compare the "actual" participants in policy discussions, among all the WGs, I think basically is the same set of 20 people. I think that tells a lot! In other RIRs, all the policy proposals are managed in a single "main" PDP WG. I've policy proposals under discussion in several RIRs, that precisely ask for 2 years terms, maximum 2 consecutive terms and then a minimim of 1-year "rest". El 10/2/21 13:32, "ripe-list en nombre de Nigel Titley" <ripe-list-bounces@ripe.net en nombre de nigel@titley.com> escribió: On 10/02/2021 12:27, Carlos Friaças via ripe-list wrote: > 2 or 3 terms, plus a "freeze period" (1 term? 1 year?) to avoid cases > where a chair "jumps" to another WG. I would completely support this if there weren't already problems in getting enough people to take on the extra workload of becoming a WG chair. Nigel ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
Hi Jordi, On Wed, 2021-02-10 at 14:13 +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list wrote:
I've the feeling that in part, the lack of volunteers is due to the fact that existing ones can continue in perpetuity.
To prevent this becoming a problem most (maybe all?) working groups have a re-selection of working group chairs every couple of years. The only way a chair can stay in perpetuity is when the working group keeps selecting them to do so. If a working group wants new chairs there only needs to be a volunteer to run for chair and the working group to support them.
Also the details that we have in some cases 3 WG chairs and that means 1 less chair available for another WG.
That's not how it works. Limiting the number of chairs in (for example) IOT would not cause an extra person to be available to chair Address Policy. People usually only volunteer to chair working groups that have their personal interest.
Note that I think that, considering that in other RIRs, there is a "single" WG for what it really is more important (PDP) and they are able to cope with the workload, this could also be the same here.
Different RIRs work in different ways. I like the structure in RIPE where the Address Policy working group not run by the RIR but by the community.
May be a model where we have a single "policy WG" (all the policies discussed in the same list) and the other WG for non-policy discussions.
No thanks, we have different working groups for different areas, and that is a feature. Imagine what would be the response when someone would suggest that all those WGs in the IETF are not good and that there should be one Engineering WG. Not a good idea.
If we compare the "actual" participants in policy discussions, among all the WGs, I think basically is the same set of 20 people. I think that tells a lot!
I think you should look better. The group of people participating in Address Policy is very different from Anti Abuse or Routing.
In other RIRs, all the policy proposals are managed in a single "main" PDP WG.
That's their choice. We don't have to copy them.
I've policy proposals under discussion in several RIRs, that precisely ask for 2 years terms, maximum 2 consecutive terms and then a minimim of 1-year "rest".
That's your proposal, and everybody can decide whether they think it is a good idea and want to adopt it in their region. I think it's a bad idea for the RIPE region. Cheers, Sander
On 10/02/2021 13:13, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list wrote:
Hi Nigel,
I've the feeling that in part, the lack of volunteers is due to the fact that existing ones can continue in perpetuity.
Well, possibly, but most of the WGs I've had anything to do with are quite assiduous in trying to recruit new chairs.
Also the details that we have in some cases 3 WG chairs and that means 1 less chair available for another WG. Note that I think that, considering that in other RIRs, there is a "single" WG for what it really is more important (PDP) and they are able to cope with the workload, this could also be the same here.
That's certainly a viable model and it seems to work in, for example, ARIN, but I suspect that may be partly because the majority of proposals are concerned with address policy, so the "PDP" working group becomes a de-facto Address Policy WG. I'm not saying that this is a bad thing but I do think that the RIPE way of doing things encourages the development of non Address policy policies. However this is just an opinion.
If we compare the "actual" participants in policy discussions, among all the WGs, I think basically is the same set of 20 people. I think that tells a lot!
I does tell a lot, but what does it tell us?
In other RIRs, all the policy proposals are managed in a single "main" PDP WG.
See above...
I've policy proposals under discussion in several RIRs, that precisely ask for 2 years terms, maximum 2 consecutive terms and then a minimim of 1-year "rest".
I'm very much against term limits. I see no reason to remove someone from office as long as they are performing the job properly. Nigel
On 10/02/2021 15:42, Nigel Titley wrote:
I've policy proposals under discussion in several RIRs, that precisely ask for 2 years terms, maximum 2 consecutive terms and then a minimim of 1-year "rest".
I'm very much against term limits. I see no reason to remove someone from office as long as they are performing the job properly.
Nigel
Agreed 200%. As also Sander pointed out - there is a process in place for WG chairs rotation and if a chair is not doing her/his job properly - the WG will most probably make sure that the chair rotation happens ;) Cheers, Jan
Hi, On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 03:57:44PM +0100, Jan Zorz - Go6 wrote:
As also Sander pointed out - there is a process in place for WG chairs rotation and if a chair is not doing her/his job properly - the WG will most probably make sure that the chair rotation happens ;)
Also, it should be pointed out that the PDP has no authority on WG chair rotation or selection. Gert Doering -- creaky chair -- 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
I'm convinced that if you allow infinite terms, most of the people in the WG, will support the same existing folks. I did, now I realize it was a wrong decision in some case. In Spanish we have a said "the bad known is better than the good to know" (not sure if the translation is correct, or there is an alternative in English) - and I followed that advice. I think it is wrong that the PDP has nothing to say with the selection of the chairs. The PDP is about policy making. They chairs are responsible of determining the consensus. No sense that it is not relevant. Responding to Sander/Nigel to make it a single email: 1) Basically, it is the same people speaking up about any policy proposal in any WG, of course many be not 100% coincidence, but a very high %. It would be a good analysis even if I'm mistaken, for the chairs-team to expose. It means there is no sense to discuss policy in different WGs, it means a small set of the community is interested. It means that people that may be interested in discussing people is lost because it forces them to participate in different WGs. There are many takes on this. 2) Some people may be willing to serve, of course they may prefer a specific WG, so then having 2 WG chairs instead of 3 will not help. But some others are willing to server in any WG (or a subset of them). 3) In all the RIRs "all" the policies are run by the community, no matter is the address policy or something else. I'm not sure if Sander was referring to ARIN. It is true that in that case, as it was commented a few weeks ago in the list, ARIN did a "gift" to the community accepting that the community runs the PDP and anyway, this is done via the AC, which is selected by membership ... I know I'm writing it in a very simple way, but basically is that. And this is a completely different model than the other 4 RIRs. In my personal opinion a broken model because the community lose the control of the proposals very early in the process. 4) People experience in a job is very good, but up to a certain point. Afterwards, they may be bored, pay less attention, and become "kings". This is happening. They are taking "usual practices" (from them) as rules of the PDP. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 10/2/21 16:01, "ripe-list en nombre de Gert Doering" <ripe-list-bounces@ripe.net en nombre de gert@space.net> escribió: Hi, On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 03:57:44PM +0100, Jan Zorz - Go6 wrote: > As also Sander pointed out - there is a process in place for WG chairs > rotation and if a chair is not doing her/his job properly - the WG will > most probably make sure that the chair rotation happens ;) Also, it should be pointed out that the PDP has no authority on WG chair rotation or selection. Gert Doering -- creaky chair -- 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 ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
On Wed, 10 Feb 2021, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list wrote:
Hi Nigel,
I've the feeling that in part, the lack of volunteers is due to the fact that existing ones can continue in perpetuity.
Hi, Just let me share a thought about this: "existing ones can continue in pertetuity" For me long standing members of this community are appreciated! I really miss reading those community members that reached the retirement age and reduced (or ceased, *sigh*) their participation. Experience is valuable. Advices are valuable. What is *extremely* strange to me is people not accepting that others may not accept their advice. If following a given advice was "mandatory" then it would be an "order", not an advice. Cheers, Carlos ps: i'm not over my 5 messages/day quota, or am i...? :-)
Hi Jordi, On 10.02.21 14:13, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list wrote:
Hi Nigel,
I've the feeling that in part, the lack of volunteers is due to the fact that existing ones can continue in perpetuity.
I do not see any facts supporting your claim.
Also the details that we have in some cases 3 WG chairs and that means 1 less chair available for another WG. Note that I think that, considering that in other RIRs, there is a "single" WG for what it really is more important (PDP) and they are able to cope with the workload, this could also be the same here.
This make no sense. If I would like to volunteer as a Adress Policy WG chair, it does not mean I would like to volunteer as IOT WG chair.
May be a model where we have a single "policy WG" (all the policies discussed in the same list) and the other WG for non-policy discussions.
If we compare the "actual" participants in policy discussions, among all the WGs, I think basically is the same set of 20 people. I think that tells a lot!
I assure you, there is more than one WG, that I have not active taking part in and do not want to be forced to take in. It is not because I do not value other WGs, but I lack the time for meaningful contributions. If you want to foster participation, please do not try it by hinder actual participants. If a such small crowd of actual participants is real, I have no data on this, it contradicts your own statement of "lack of volunteers is due to the fact that existing ones can continue in perpetuity".
In other RIRs, all the policy proposals are managed in a single "main" PDP WG.
I've policy proposals under discussion in several RIRs, that precisely ask for 2 years terms, maximum 2 consecutive terms and then a minimim of 1-year "rest".
I do not support this proposal. Kind regards, Christoph
On 10.02.2021 13:32, Nigel Titley wrote:
On 10/02/2021 12:27, Carlos Friaças via ripe-list wrote:
2 or 3 terms, plus a "freeze period" (1 term? 1 year?) to avoid cases where a chair "jumps" to another WG.
I would completely support this if there weren't already problems in getting enough people to take on the extra workload of becoming a WG chair.
It could also be the other way round. People might be discouraged to run against the long-time chairs. Arnold
> >> 2 or 3 terms, plus a "freeze period" (1 term? 1 year?) to avoid >> cases where a chair "jumps" to another WG. > > I would completely support this if there weren't already problems in > getting enough people to take on the extra workload of becoming a WG > chair. > It could also be the other way round. People might be discouraged to run against the long-time chairs. **** Exactly, that's was my point, it looks that I was not able to find the best wording. I've seen that in other organizations, not just here. 1) You ask for volunteers to replace "existing co-chair a" 2) There are 1-2 volunteers 3) "existing co-chair a" say, I will also volunteer to continue 4) There are comments like "existing co-chair a" has been there for long time, he knows the job ... 5) the 1-2 volunteers then drop-out. May be the recommendation should be "2 terms maximum, 2 years each, then 1 year minimum stop, unless there are no other volunteers to fill the vacancy". ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
On 11/02/2021 09:00, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list wrote:
2 or 3 terms, plus a "freeze period" (1 term? 1 year?) to avoid cases where a chair "jumps" to another WG.
I would completely support this if there weren't already problems in getting enough people to take on the extra workload of becoming a WG chair.
It could also be the other way round. People might be discouraged to run against the long-time chairs.
**** Exactly, that's was my point, it looks that I was not able to find the best wording. I've seen that in other organizations, not just here.
1) You ask for volunteers to replace "existing co-chair a" 2) There are 1-2 volunteers 3) "existing co-chair a" say, I will also volunteer to continue 4) There are comments like "existing co-chair a" has been there for long time, he knows the job ... 5) the 1-2 volunteers then drop-out.
May be the recommendation should be "2 terms maximum, 2 years each, then 1 year minimum stop, unless there are no other volunteers to fill the vacancy".
No. I understand the sympathy towards "people might be discouraged to run against the long-time chairs" and we should encourage young and fresh energy into taking a chairing roles and leading roles - but as many up to now already pointed out: This is a community and not some governmental organization or court. If long-standing chairs are performing well, doing their job and WG is active and producing satisfying results - I see no issue with them continuing the good job that they were doing up to date. Believe me - if there is any sign of chair not doing the right thing and when this continues - the process of "rotation" will start among the participants of particular WG and at the end of a day the chair in question will be hinted to just not stand up again for re-election and problem will be solved one way or another. And at the end of a day, stability of WGs is also something that counts - provided that WGs are not stalling and doing their job. On the other hand - if WG has good chairs that are taking a WG work to another level and their term expires and there are no other candidates to chair the WG - what happens then? Because of some rules that were meant to solve some corner cases you loose good chairs? Come on Jordi, you know better than that... Cheers, Jan
On 11.02.2021 11:52, Jan Zorz - Go6 wrote:
Come on Jordi, you know better than that...
You too, Jan ;-) Arnold
On Thu, 11 Feb 2021, 05.00 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list, < ripe-list@ripe.net> wrote:
It could also be the other way round. People might be discouraged to run against the long-time chairs.
**** Exactly, that's was my point, it looks that I was not able to find the best wording. I've seen that in other organizations, not just here.
1) You ask for volunteers to replace "existing co-chair a" 2) There are 1-2 volunteers 3) "existing co-chair a" say, I will also volunteer to continue 4) There are comments like "existing co-chair a" has been there for long time, he knows the job ... 5) the 1-2 volunteers then drop-out.
Some believe elections for chair means to reelect if the former chair did OK. I believe Jordi's observation above is correct. It makes the community seem smaller, rather than invite in new people. I don't believe it would be very likely that no one would step up if the seat really was vacant. -- robert
Hi,
I don't believe it would be very likely that no one would step up if the seat really was vacant.
Unfortunately I know of at least two instances where that has happened in the past few years, after repeated calls for volunteers when the in-situ chair was stepping down, or had not decided whether they would re-stand. One of those instances led to me becoming NCC-Services co-chair after I'd done my time in Routing. :) It varies between working groups too, I can also recall a couple of different working groups that have had multiple volunteers recently and then wondered how to select the best candidate. Several WGs have tried to encourage a composition of two old hands and one new to the scene, but it hasn't always been successful (that's not to say we shouldn't keep on trying). I think it's fair to say that most, if not all, existing WG chairs and co-chairs would welcome some new volunteers and indeed advice on how to encourage people to stand, but the fame and glory may occasionally be over-stated. Cheers, Rob
participants (10)
-
Arnold Nipper -
Carlos Friaças -
Christoph Berkemeier -
Gert Doering -
Jan Zorz - Go6 -
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ -
Nigel Titley -
Rob Evans -
Robert Martin-Legene -
Sander Steffann