Re: [ripe-list] Last Call for Draft Document: RIPE NCC Staff Participation in the RIPE Community
Hi Mirjam Sorry for yet another long email, but this is an important issue. How RIPE NCC staff talk to the community and the extent to which they are involved in community activities has always been an internal matter for the RIPE NCC to determine. Historically, different managers had different views on how their staff get involved. Now you want to formalise it and define this in a RIPE document, it is open for the community to have their say. I partially support the idea of RIPE NCC staff participating in RIPE activities 'if they choose to do so'. The relationship between the RIPE NCC and the RIPE community is complex. I don't think such a brief and vague document can address this issue. Particularly considering the perceived neutrality of the RIPE NCC as a secretariat and executive body to the RIPE community. As I pointed out in my previous comment, there are no safeguards written into this document. If a member of staff expresses a personal opinion which goes against company policy or (senior) management views, or impacts on company plans, that member of staff must not be subject to any internal disciplinary procedures. Also members of staff must not be subjected to any pressure to (not) say something in public or to (not) take up a community position, for example a WG chair, because it is considered by the RIPE NCC to be in the interests of the company. It has also been mentioned that there is a (private?) internal document on how staff can/should/must engage with the community. In the interests of openness and transparency, that internal document should be published as a RIPE NCC procedural document. Otherwise the community doesn't know the extent to which staff members are able to discuss issues with them in public. Once a staff member has made a comment, the thread may further develop until they find themselves with a conflict of interest between the direction the discussion is now going in and this internal set of rules or guidelines. Any RIPE community member may find themselves in a conflict situation between their personal view and that of their employer. But the fact that the RIPE NCC is the secretariat for the RIPE community and the executive body who implement and enforce RIPE policies may elevate such conflicts to a different level. I also noticed that this document puts the responsibility for avoiding such conflicts onto the staff members, "RIPE NCC staff need to act sensibly", "RIPE NCC staff shall take care". The tone of this document is suggesting that RIPE NCC staff will be allowed, even encouraged, to become more involved in RIPE community matters in the future, "how RIPE NCC staff can and should participate in the RIPE community". In the past such personal involvement seems to have either been discouraged or at best undefined or managed, for most of the staff. It is very rare to see a comment on a mailing list from a staff member who is not a manager, except for technical or legal announcements or responses to direct questions (which may need to be approved by a manager). In fact I have looked back at the archives for all RIPE mailing lists for this year and there are no such comments from any staff anywhere on any list. This new encouragement, by the RIPE NCC CEO, for RIPE NCC staff to freely engage with the RIPE community in public discussions and be more involved in community activities may therefore be considered as a change in the working conditions of the staff. Particularly in view of the potential for conflicts and the responsibility being on the staff to avoid such conflicts and no specified protection for staff if a conflict does arise. I believe this falls under Article 27 section d of the Dutch Works Council Act https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0002747/2023-02-18#HoofdstukIVA_Artikel27 The CEO may need consent from the Works Council at the RIPE NCC in order to implement this change in attitude and responsibility of the staff. The Works Council should seek confidential feedback from staff on how they feel about this potential change to their working conditions and responsibilities. Staff may need some training on how to engage with the community, avoiding conflicts, given the unique relationship, or how to address (the perception of) such conflicts if they should arise. Such a training scheme is also subject to Article 27 section f. If any new regulations need to be considered to protect staff from any consequences of conflicts if they follow this new encouragement to freely engage with the community, that may be subject to Article 27 sections j, g and e. So the RIPE NCC Works Council really needs to take a look at this. The bottom line is that encouraging staff to speak openly and publicly with the community has both benefits and risks. Staff have access to information that the public, and members, don't have. They can see the bigger picture and trends and practises in areas like resource allocations and usage patterns and ways in which the RIPE Database may be (mis)used. They can (and do) analyse data that the public can't even see. Sometimes the line between what you know from public data and what you know from working at the RIPE NCC can get blurred. Either all comments must be approved by management. Or staff must be allowed to speak openly and freely, expressing their personal views, without any sanctions, accepting that sometimes mistakes will be made and lines crossed. Daniel often comments on issues and makes it clear he is speaking personally and not for the RIPE NCC. But Daniel is in a privileged position. Will all staff be given the same privilege to express personal views? If they are expected to only express a collective company view then they may as well just appoint a company spokesperson to express that collective view. The rest of the staff don't need to be involved. If a staff member is a WG chair can they operate completely independently from any collective company view, even if that means opposing a company view if that is in the best interests of the WG, without any penalty? Encouraging staff to be more involved in RIPE community activities is a sensitive issue for the staff. It needs more than a couple of paragraphs and some vague principles. This document looks to have been written from a community perspective, "welcomed by the RIPE community". Is it welcomed by the staff? Has anyone asked them? Works Council or Senior Management? Or has it just been assumed the staff welcome being in both camps? Do staff want to be able to put forward an idea, argue strongly in favour of it, implement it, then take the blame if it is not right? I've been there and done that and it's not a nice place to be. Finally I would like to comment on the principles in this document. I have said many times...wording in RIPE documents is important. I am a native English speaker and an analyst with OCD, so I do see things in words more easily. But the NCC has a whole team of professional, English speaking, communications experts. Perhaps they are not used now to review these docs. Your principle No 2 "RIPE NCC staff expertise is valuable to and welcomed by the RIPE community." cannot be a recommended principle. It can be a supporting fact. But if you recommend, as a principle, that staff expertise is welcomed by the community, this becomes an instruction to the community that they must welcome this expertise. That is what these words actually say. Lastly, your principle No 1 may have unexpected consequences. "RIPE NCC staff are part of the community and may participate in RIPE activities on the same terms as anyone else.". You make no exceptions here, "same terms as anyone else". So a RIPE NCC staff member can be part of a task force, be a WG chair, be the RIPE chair (if it is no longer a full time, paid position), be a member of the next NomCom, make policy proposals, argue for or against policy proposals. So consider this possible scenario. A staff member could make a policy proposal. Other staff members could argue strongly in support of this proposal. Consensus could be declared by a WG chair who is a staff member. Any appeal would end up with the RIPE chair who could also be a staff member. The policy will then be implemented and enforced by the RIPE NCC staff. All of these people could be influenced by RIPE NCC internal company policy and allowed time within working hours to do all this. They are all FTEs paid for by the RIPE NCC membership and expected to be following RIPE activities anyway, perhaps more closely than FTEs of member companies. This is a theoretical scenario. But it does raise the question of how independent and neutral will the RIPE NCC be seen as, if it's staff can be so involved in the bottom up policy process at every level, to the point of dominating and controlling, considering the often lack of other community member involvement. I think some more thought is needed for this document. cheers denis co-chair DB-WG member of RIPE community former RIPE NCC staff member former chair RIPE NCC Works Council (for full disclosure) On Fri, 30 Jun 2023 at 12:00, <ripe-list-request@ripe.net> wrote:
From: Mirjam Kuehne <mir@zu-hause.nl>
Dear colleagues,
The deadline for comments for the draft document “RIPE NCC Staff Participation in the RIPE Community” [1] ended. Many thanks for all the comments sent to the RIPE list.
There was a lot of support for the document, especially for the principle that RIPE NCC staff are part of the RIPE community. It is great to see that RIPE NCC staff is welcome and valued by community members.
There were some suggestions to explicitly allow RIPE staff to take on certain community roles. Other community members disagreed and cautioned that this could lead to conflict of interests. Hans Petter Holen clarified that there are also RIPE NCC internal guidelines for staff.
There were no concrete suggestions for changes in the document. I believe that the current version is ready for adoption and publication as a RIPE Document and would like to confirm this.
This is therefore a LAST CALL for comments, to expire on Monday 10 July at 06:00 UTC (08:00 Amsterdam time). Unless there are some substantial comments, I look forward to declaring consensus and arranging publication shortly after that.
Kind regards, Mirjam Kühne RIPE Chair
[1] RIPE NCC Staff Participation in the RIPE Community https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-documents/other-documents/ripe-n...
--
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ripe-list
Dear RIPE List-ers, Hope this email finds you in good health! Please see my comments below, inline... Thanks. Le vendredi 7 juillet 2023, denis walker <ripedenis@gmail.com> a écrit :
Hi Mirjam
Sorry for yet another long email, but this is an important issue.
Hi Denis, Thanks for raising such interesting issues, brother.
[...]
The bottom line is that encouraging staff to speak openly and publicly with the community has both benefits and risks. [...]
...agreed!
[...]
don't need to be involved. If a staff member is a WG chair can they
operate completely independently from any collective company view, even if that means opposing a company view if that is in the best interests of the WG, without any penalty?
How to address this risk?
Encouraging staff to be more involved in RIPE community activities is a sensitive issue for the staff. It needs more than a couple of paragraphs and some vague principles. This document looks to have been written from a community perspective, "welcomed by the RIPE community". Is it welcomed by the staff? Has anyone asked them? Works Council or Senior Management? Or has it just been assumed the staff welcome being in both camps?
A good opportunity to test the assumed *principle*.
Do staff want to be able to put forward an idea, argue strongly in favour of it, implement it, then take the blame if it is not right? I've been there and done that and it's not a nice place to be.
...i'm not a RIPE NCC Staff! i'm curious to know their answers; even an anonymised version would suffice.
Finally I would like to comment on the principles in this document. I have said many times...wording in RIPE documents is important. I am a native English speaker and an analyst with OCD, so I do see things in words more easily. But the NCC has a whole team of professional, English speaking, communications experts. Perhaps they are not used now to review these docs. Your principle No 2 "RIPE NCC staff expertise is valuable to and welcomed by the RIPE community." cannot be a recommended principle. It can be a supporting fact. But if you recommend, as a principle, that staff expertise is welcomed by the community, this becomes an instruction to the community that they must welcome this expertise. That is what these words actually say.
...i welcome it! but i expect a RIPE NCC Staff to be both protected and prevented to put the RIR org in danger; while acting selfishnessly. Training and capacity building would certainly be of great help here, i agree.
Lastly, your principle No 1 may have unexpected consequences. "RIPE NCC staff are part of the community and may participate in RIPE activities on the same terms as anyone else.". You make no exceptions here, "same terms as anyone else". So a RIPE NCC staff member can be part of a task force, be a WG chair, be the RIPE chair (if it is no longer a full time, paid position), be a member of the next NomCom, make policy proposals, argue for or against policy proposals. So consider this possible scenario. A staff member could make a policy proposal. Other staff members could argue strongly in support of this proposal. Consensus could be declared by a WG chair who is a staff member. Any appeal would end up with the RIPE chair who could also be a staff member. The policy will then be implemented and enforced by the RIPE NCC staff. All of these people could be influenced by RIPE NCC internal company policy and allowed time within working hours to do all this. They are all FTEs paid for by the RIPE NCC membership and expected to be following RIPE activities anyway, perhaps more closely than FTEs of member companies. This is a theoretical scenario.
Indeed, it's sadly an unexpected & undesirable side effect! at least for me :'-( How to, safely, prevent it to happen?
But it does raise the question of how independent and neutral will the RIPE NCC be seen as, if it's staff can be so involved in the bottom up policy process at every level, to the point of dominating and controlling, considering the often lack of other community member involvement.
...for me, quantity alone would not satisfactorily address the issue. Where, quality & appropriate *safeguards* would likely achieve the objective, imho! But! which *safeguards*? that's a question i would like to get answers from others with more clue... :-)
I think some more thought is needed for this document.
...i actually agree too! Thanks for your useful and detailed explanation of the issues raised, dear Denis. Shalom, --sb.
cheers denis co-chair DB-WG member of RIPE community former RIPE NCC staff member former chair RIPE NCC Works Council (for full disclosure)
On Fri, 30 Jun 2023 at 12:00, <ripe-list-request@ripe.net> wrote:
From: Mirjam Kuehne <mir@zu-hause.nl>
[...]
[1] RIPE NCC Staff Participation in the RIPE Community https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-documents/other-documents/
ripe-ncc-staff-participation-in-the-ripe-community
[...]
-- Best Regards ! __ baya.sylvain[AT cmNOG DOT cm]|<https://cmnog.cm/dokuwiki/Structure> Subscribe to Mailing List: <https://lists.cmnog.cm/mailman/listinfo/cmnog/> __ #LASAINTEBIBLE|#Romains15:33«Que LE #DIEU de #Paix soit avec vous tous! #Amen!» #MaPrière est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement «Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme soupire après TOI, ô DIEU!»(#Psaumes42:2)
Hi, Denis. I'm copying Mirjam and Hans Petter, who are co-authors with me of the proposed document. On 7 Jul 2023, at 14:31, denis walker wrote:
Your principle No 2 "RIPE NCC staff expertise is valuable to and welcomed by the RIPE community." cannot be a recommended principle. It can be a supporting fact.
Thank you for raising this point, which I want to address first, and consider entirely reasonable. Unless there is strong feedback from others in the community not to bother, I will work with the other authors to revise the draft accordingly. After that, Mirjam or I will announce a fresh last-call period. For the rest, please read on. In the message cited above, denis walker also wrote:
How RIPE NCC staff talk to the community and the extent to which they are involved in community activities has always been an internal matter for the RIPE NCC to determine. Historically, different managers had different views on how their staff get involved. Now you want to formalise it and define this in a RIPE document,
This is a misconception, which seems to inform all of your other comments. The RIPE Community has no business to interpose itself in the internal affairs of the RIPE NCC, whether between NCC and staff or between NCC and members. What we want to do in this document is to make it clear that, from the community's point of view, RIPE NCC staff members are seen as belonging to our community, rather than apart from it. I think it may be worth bearing in mind that most of the participants in RIPE are bound by obligations to an employer, and that RIPE NCC staff are no different in this respect. The exceptions include you and me, who no longer bear such obligations, and the RIPE Chair Team, for whom the principles of RIPE-797 apply. Best regards, Niall O'Reilly as co-author of the proposed RIPE document rather than as RIPE Vice-Chair
Dear colleagues, On 14 Jul 2023, at 13:29, I wrote:
Unless there is strong feedback from others in the community not to bother, I will work with the other authors to revise the draft accordingly. After that, Mirjam or I will announce a fresh last-call period.
The revised draft is now available here: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-documents/other-documents/ripe-n... I take the opportunity to announce a re-opened last call period, to close at 04:00 UTC on Monday, 4 September 2023. Best regards, Niall O'Reilly, RIPE Vice-Chair
niall, looked good last time and i can not see that you have damaged it :) so i re-support. randy
Dear Niall Can you elaborate more about principle number 2: I appreciate if you can provide some examples that lead to this recommendation 2-In settings that provide guidance to the RIPE NCC, RIPE NCC staff shall take care both to disclose their position and to avoid giving direction. Thank you and best regards Nabeel Yasin WhatsApp/Tel: +967 777006885 ________________________________ From: ripe-list <ripe-list-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of Niall O'Reilly <niall.oreilly@ucd.ie> Sent: Friday, July 21, 2023 6:32 PM To: RIPE List <ripe-list@ripe.net> Cc: denis walker <ripedenis@gmail.com> Subject: [ripe-list] Re-opened Last Call for Draft Document: RIPE NCC Staff Participation in the RIPE Community Dear colleagues, On 14 Jul 2023, at 13:29, I wrote:
Unless there is strong feedback from others in the community not to bother, I will work with the other authors to revise the draft accordingly. After that, Mirjam or I will announce a fresh last-call period.
The revised draft is now available here: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-documents/other-documents/ripe-n... I take the opportunity to announce a re-opened last call period, to close at 04:00 UTC on Monday, 4 September 2023. Best regards, Niall O'Reilly, RIPE Vice-Chair -- To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ripe-list
Dear Nabeel and Colleagues, On 25 Jul 2023, at 6:19, NABEEL YASIN MOHAMMED AMIN wrote:
[Nabeel] Can you elaborate more about principle number 2:
Gladly.
[Nabeel] I appreciate if you can provide some examples that lead to this recommendation
It would be difficult for me to do this, as the proposed document follows from the RIPE Chair Selection Process of 2020 rather than from a series of examples. This process brought to light a number of concerns about the relationship between RIPE and the RIPE NCC, which were discussed on the RIPE-list in a thread starting with this message: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ripe-chair-discuss/2020-May/000271.h... The discussion led the RIPE 2020 NomCom to include a recommendation in its final report (https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ripe-list/2021-March/002170.html), calling on the community to
[NomCom 2020] Document [its] consensus on the relationship between RIPE and the RIPE NCC; in particular consensus how RIPE NCC staff can participate in RIPE including nominations for RIPE Chair.
The proposed document is focused on the second part of this recommendation. I note that the proposed document ought to include a link to the NomCom's final report, rather than simply mentioning it. I am grateful to you, Nabeel, for bringing to my attention that such a link is missing.
[Nabeel] 2-In settings that provide guidance to the RIPE NCC, RIPE NCC staff shall take care both to disclose their position and to avoid giving direction.
I can elaborate further, but only by way of personal comment. Except by happy co-incidence, none of what follows is a matter of RIPE consensus. As I see it, RIPE and the RIPE NCC have a mutually supportive relationship, which is asymmetric. The RIPE NCC acts as the secretariat to RIPE, operates a regional Internet registry, and performs additional functions as may be appropriate. It takes direction (or guidance) from RIPE at both policy and technical levels, respectively through the Policy Development Process (PDP) and the work-item (NWI) mechanism. On the other hand, RIPE may need to depend on the RIPE NCC to provide advice which it can use to inform any guidance it may wish to give to the NCC. The second principle, requiring disclosure and "to avoid giving direction" is intended to protect against the possibility of "shaping" of RIPE's guidance by NCC staff, while allowing non-directive, fact-based advice derived from available operational data, from ad-hoc measurements, or from professional expertise. I hope this helps. Best regards, Niall O'Reilly RIPE VICE-Chair, co-author of the proposed document
Dear Niall Thank you for you explanation, i almost got the idea behind this recommendation as you said to avoid "shaping" 👍😃 Thank you very much and best regards Nabeel Yasin Tel/WhatsApp +967777006885 ________________________________ From: Niall O'Reilly <niall.oreilly@ucd.ie> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2023 6:07 PM To: RIPE List <ripe-list@ripe.net> Cc: NABEEL YASIN MOHAMMED AMIN <nabeelyasin@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: [ripe-list] Re-opened Last Call for Draft Document: RIPE NCC Staff Participation in the RIPE Community Dear Nabeel and Colleagues, On 25 Jul 2023, at 6:19, NABEEL YASIN MOHAMMED AMIN wrote:
[Nabeel] Can you elaborate more about principle number 2:
Gladly.
[Nabeel] I appreciate if you can provide some examples that lead to this recommendation
It would be difficult for me to do this, as the proposed document follows from the RIPE Chair Selection Process of 2020 rather than from a series of examples. This process brought to light a number of concerns about the relationship between RIPE and the RIPE NCC, which were discussed on the RIPE-list in a thread starting with this message: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ripe-chair-discuss/2020-May/000271.h... The discussion led the RIPE 2020 NomCom to include a recommendation in its final report (https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ripe-list/2021-March/002170.html), calling on the community to
[NomCom 2020] Document [its] consensus on the relationship between RIPE and the RIPE NCC; in particular consensus how RIPE NCC staff can participate in RIPE including nominations for RIPE Chair.
The proposed document is focused on the second part of this recommendation. I note that the proposed document ought to include a link to the NomCom's final report, rather than simply mentioning it. I am grateful to you, Nabeel, for bringing to my attention that such a link is missing.
[Nabeel] 2-In settings that provide guidance to the RIPE NCC, RIPE NCC staff shall take care both to disclose their position and to avoid giving direction.
I can elaborate further, but only by way of personal comment. Except by happy co-incidence, none of what follows is a matter of RIPE consensus. As I see it, RIPE and the RIPE NCC have a mutually supportive relationship, which is asymmetric. The RIPE NCC acts as the secretariat to RIPE, operates a regional Internet registry, and performs additional functions as may be appropriate. It takes direction (or guidance) from RIPE at both policy and technical levels, respectively through the Policy Development Process (PDP) and the work-item (NWI) mechanism. On the other hand, RIPE may need to depend on the RIPE NCC to provide advice which it can use to inform any guidance it may wish to give to the NCC. The second principle, requiring disclosure and "to avoid giving direction" is intended to protect against the possibility of "shaping" of RIPE's guidance by NCC staff, while allowing non-directive, fact-based advice derived from available operational data, from ad-hoc measurements, or from professional expertise. I hope this helps. Best regards, Niall O'Reilly RIPE VICE-Chair, co-author of the proposed document
On 21/07/2023 16:32, Niall O'Reilly wrote:
Dear colleagues,
On 14 Jul 2023, at 13:29, I wrote:
Unless there is strong feedback from others in the community not to bother, I will work with the other authors to revise the draft accordingly. After that, Mirjam or I will announce a fresh last-call period.
The revised draft is now available here: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-documents/other-documents/ripe-n...
I take the opportunity to announce a re-opened last call period, to close at 04:00 UTC on Monday, 4 September 2023.
I'm actually (and surprisingly) reasonably happy with this revised draft. Nigel
Disclosure: I am one of the founders of RIPE and both the first and a current employee of the RIPE NCC. I have also been the chair of the 2020 Nominating Committee that made the recommendation mentioned in the document. I agree with form and content of this draft. In my humble opinion it expresses the consensus that I perceive to exist in the RIPE community. It is encouraging that one of the authors is both a long standing and well respected member of the community as well as the current CEO of the RIPE NCC. Well done! Daniel PS: I do recognise that the times when we were a community first and had corporate (governance) roles second are long gone. However the underlying spirit has served our community well, both in the past and at present. We have nothing at all to gain from erecting excessive formal barriers that prevent individuals from doing the right thing. Oftentimes such barriers are an invitation to be gamed in service of particular agendas. Even worse such rules very often fuel cynical attitudes even among people who are very capable and would rather use their time and energy constructively. As a community we have much to gain and little to loose by welcoming RIPE NCC staff to participate fully and -of course- transparently in the work we do. On the other hand we have much to loose and little to gain by blindly copying behaviours and rules from public or corporate governance that do not fit our situation. Daniel On 21-07-2023 17:32, Niall O'Reilly wrote:
Dear colleagues,
On 14 Jul 2023, at 13:29, I wrote:
Unless there is strong feedback from others in the community not to bother, I will work with the other authors to revise the draft accordingly. After that, Mirjam or I will announce a fresh last-call period.
The revised draft is now available here: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-documents/other-documents/ripe-n...
I take the opportunity to announce a re-opened last call period, to close at 04:00 UTC on Monday, 4 September 2023.
Best regards,
Niall O'Reilly, RIPE Vice-Chair
On 28.07.2023 10:38, Daniel Karrenberg via ripe-list wrote:
[...]
As a community we have much to gain and little to loose by welcoming RIPE NCC staff to participate fully and -of course- transparently in the work we do.
On the other hand we have much to loose and little to gain by blindly copying behaviours and rules from public or corporate governance that do not fit our situation.
Absolutely! +1. Thanks, Daniel, for having transferred this into words so eloquently. Best, -C.
On 28/07/2023 13:14, Carsten Schiefner wrote:
On 28.07.2023 10:38, Daniel Karrenberg via ripe-list wrote:
[...]
As a community we have much to gain and little to loose by welcoming RIPE NCC staff to participate fully and -of course- transparently in the work we do.
On the other hand we have much to loose and little to gain by blindly copying behaviours and rules from public or corporate governance that do not fit our situation.
Absolutely!
+1.
Thanks, Daniel, for having transferred this into words so eloquently.
Including adding a touch of verisimilitude with the classic loose/lose mistype. Pure gold ;-) Nigel
Hi,
On 28.07.2023 10:38, Daniel Karrenberg via ripe-list wrote:
[...] As a community we have much to gain and little to loose by welcoming RIPE NCC staff to participate fully and -of course- transparently in the work we do. On the other hand we have much to loose and little to gain by blindly copying behaviours and rules from public or corporate governance that do not fit our situation.
Absolutely!
+1.
Thanks, Daniel, for having transferred this into words so eloquently.
+1 from me as well. Thank you Daniel! Sander
Hi, On Fri, Jul 28, 2023 at 10:38:11AM +0200, Daniel Karrenberg via ripe-list wrote:
As a community we have much to gain and little to loose by welcoming RIPE NCC staff to participate fully and -of course- transparently in the work we do.
This! gert -- 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
Dear Niall, please note my +1 support for adoption of this draft. And all, have a lovely summer or whatever season you are currently having. Maria On 7/21/23 17:32, Niall O'Reilly wrote:
Dear colleagues,
On 14 Jul 2023, at 13:29, I wrote:
Unless there is strong feedback from others in the community not to bother, I will work with the other authors to revise the draft accordingly. After that, Mirjam or I will announce a fresh last-call period. The revised draft is now available here: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-documents/other-documents/ripe-n...
I take the opportunity to announce a re-opened last call period, to close at 04:00 UTC on Monday, 4 September 2023.
Best regards,
Niall O'Reilly, RIPE Vice-Chair
-- Maria Matejka (she/her) | BIRD Team Leader | CZ.NIC, z.s.p.o.
Hi, Niall O’Reilly wrote:
/ripe-ncc-staff-participation-in-the-ripe-community-draft-v2<https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-documents/other-documents/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
Dear RIPE List-ers, Hope this email finds you in good health! Please see my comments below, inline... Thanks. Le mer. 2 août 2023 à 19:06, Andy Davidson <andy@nosignal.org> a écrit :
Hi,
Niall O’Reilly wrote:
/ripe-ncc-staff-participation-in-the-ripe-community-draft-v2 <https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-documents/other-documents/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?
Hi Andy, Many thanks for stating it so softly, brother :-) ...i, too, would definitely like to see it captured. It seems, to me, that it would appropriately address the concerns, strongly, raised by Denis. ...*we* or ianal, though! Maybe we need a lawyer to join the conversation? ...btw, someone who can think in support for the community, as including the Staff, would be better :'-) imho! Shalom, --sb.
I recognise your effort in putting together this document, it is not a simple undertaking to author governance material.
Andy Davidson --
[...]
-- Best Regards ! baya.sylvain [AT cmNOG DOT cm] |cmNOG's Structure <https://cmnog.cm/dokuwiki/Structure>|cmNOG's Surveys <https://survey2.cmnog.cm/> Subscribe to the cmNOG's Mailing List <https://lists.cmnog.cm/mailman/listinfo/cmnog/> __ *#LASAINTEBIBLE|#Romains15:33«*Que LE #DIEU de #Paix soit avec vous tous! #Amen!*»#MaPrière est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement«*Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme soupire après TOI, ô DIEU!*» (#Psaumes42:2)*
On 2 Aug 2023, at 17:54, Andy Davidson wrote:
I like that there is a document draft and I like that it is short, thank you. :-)
Thank you, Andy, for this encouraging feedback, which I appreciate very much.
We need to make sure that it is not too short. Agreed.
The guiding principle that RIPE NCC team members are simultaneously valued community members is correct and has my full support. Appreciated.
It is appropriate too that NCC team members disclose their position to the NCC when providing guidance in a RIPE community setting (p2).
Your reading of p2 seems quite different from what I believe we (including my co-authors) intended. Perhaps we expressed it too succinctly, and had better have put it like this: "In settings where RIPE is preparing guidance for the RIPE NCC, RIPE NCC staff shall take care both to disclose their position to, and to avoid giving direction to, the community." Specifically, I understand the disclosure involved as to the community, rather than to the NCC, and that for "NCC team members ... [to be] providing guidance" rather than non-directive, fact-based advice, is what they are expected, as I understand p2, to avoid. In an earlier message (https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ripe-list/2023-July/002973.html, three paragraphs, beginning "I can elaborate further, ..."), I've tried to explain my understanding of 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).
I don't see the contradiction. It seems to me that most participants in RIPE have to accommodate their engagement in the community with their obligations to an employer, and that finding the proper accommodation is not an essentially different challenge according to whether one's employer is the RIPE NCC or some other enterprise.
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.
I believe that we have a long-established principle which covers such situations. As far as I know, this has not been articulated as a principle, but has occasionally been given context-specific expression, as (for example) by Gert Döring (https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2008-September/003...) on 2 September 2008: "As has been mentioned before: the address policy WG does not have the power to actually decide on the final charging scheme. We give input to the AGM (= annual general meeting of all NCC members), and the AGM decides on the final charging scheme to be implemented." The underlying principle which I perceive behind expressions such as this, is that RIPE does not give direction to the RIPE NCC on how to raise or apply resources, but rather indicates work (by documenting an NWI) or policy (using the PDP) which the community considers desirable by consensus.
Can this be captured in the lovely succinct way that you have approached the first two drafts?
I hope so. I am not sure that the principle which I have just tried to articulate belongs in this document. The recommendations of the RIPE 2020 NomCom also call for documentation of community consensus on the relationship between RIPE and the RIPE NCC. This is future work, which I expect will produce a document where it seems to me that this principle might be better placed. It may be appropriate to add explanatory or motivational text to the present document, outlining a "traditional" principle and anticipating its formal articulation in a companion document.
I recognise your effort in putting together this document, it is not a simple undertaking to author governance material.
I really appreciate this recognition. I'm sure you also appreciate that the more succinct a document is to be, the more effort it will require. Finally, I want to take the opportunity to mention that, even without an employer to set my agenda, I still have to accommodate my engagement in the community with other obligations, and will therefore be taking a break from my RIPE duties from this (Friday) afternoon until early in September. Thanks again, Andy. Best regards, Niall as co-author of the proposed RIPE document rather than as RIPE Vice-Chair
participants (12)
-
Andy Davidson -
Carsten Schiefner -
Daniel Karrenberg -
denis walker -
Gert Doering -
Maria Matejka -
NABEEL YASIN MOHAMMED AMIN -
Niall O'Reilly -
Nigel Titley -
Randy Bush -
Sander Steffann -
Sylvain Baya