On 23 Mar 2022, at 16:48, Desiree wrote:

The updated draft looks good. No objections..

One clarification, does the Chair announce the elements of the TF (Scope, Charter…) on the RIPE mailing list?

Thanks for these comments, Desirée. Usually, it will be the Chair’s responsibility to make this announcement, and the RIPE mailing list will be the appropriate channel. I can imagine that it might exceptionally be appropriate to make the announcement in the context of a RIPE Working Group, in which case one of the Co-Chairs could do this, using the corresponding mailing list. Niall

One more point that I forgot. An additional argument to consider my inputs, specially 1 and 2, is that the creation of a TF, don’t have an appeal process. So, unless we add that complexity, the best way to avoid it, is precisely to ensure that 1 and 2 are resolved, so there is no need to that appeal process. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 10/4/22, 11:10, "ripe-list en nombre de JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list" <ripe-list-bounces@ripe.net en nombre de ripe-list@ripe.net> escribió: Hi Niall, all, I need to insist in some of the points that I’ve raised on February 20th, rephrasing them a little bit, considering the new version: 1) Elements of the TF structure of work (Rationale, Charter, etc.). I don’t agree it should be the Chair unique responsibility to define them. May be the way to resolve this is that once they are drafted by the Chair, there is an opportunity for the community to comment on those, let’s say during a one-month period? Alternatively, the TF itself may be able to propose a review on that once the work is started and seek community support. 2) There is no way an open and transparent community can accept a non-justified decision for appointing TF members. This is prone to arbitrary and discriminatory decisions, even if not done in bad faith. Considering the “usual” level of participation, I think it will be fine to just call for volunteers. You will never get 100 volunteers. I will even agree to say “the Chair is suggesting the following experts and we open a n weeks period for other volunteers, up to a limit of 10 participants” (just an example). Expertise is not the only important thing. You can have experts that don’t have the time, or have a bias, or whatever. Allowing open participation removes the arbitrariness and provides a balance not only with experts, but also with other community eyes. 3) Consensus building. I’m happier with the new version of this section. However, there is something that is still not resolved. If the TF members don’t reach an agreement in specific issues, the report from the TF must show that disagreement and explain the different views, because that is most probably very representative of what the community could think and it is a way to be very transparent so the community can either provide alternative views that may be the TF didn’t consider, or balance the TF outcome, etc. 4) Participation of observers in TF calls. Exactly the same we are saying that TF mailing list and minutes must be open to the community, the community must be able to join the calls (if the TF is using them) as observers (no voice, no “vote”). Minutes are good, but they aren’t scripts of all what is being said or discussed, and there may be details that are very important and can provide means for observers to contribute with additional suggestions from details in that discussion. 5) This is not only relevant for the TFs and don’t belong to this document but it shows very well the point I’m trying to make. We need a clear pre-defined well-known timing in case a TF outcome needs to go for community consensus. This is the reason I’m saying that the governance documents should also use the PDP, because it is a well-known process with well-known timing. Overall comment that explains my objections/proposed changes: We know that whatever is drafted by the TF will need to reach the community consensus or bring the creation of a new document(s), etc. However we also know that the participation in consensus decision (either in a direct outcome from the TF or subsequent documents) is extremely low. So, it is easy to understand that a report from a TF that doesn’t neccesarily have a community “overall” support, may not receive sufficient inputs (either in favour or against) because many community members can think “oh well, it was a TF working on that, they know what they are doing, it should be ok”. So there is a lower level of review, etc. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 23/3/22, 15:38, "ripe-list en nombre de Niall O'Reilly" <ripe-list-bounces@ripe.net en nombre de niall.oreilly@ucd.ie> escribió: Dear Colleagues, [Please view this message as either plain text or HTML, according to your preference.] In view of significant comments received during what we had expected to be a restricted last call, Mirjam and I have decided to make a fresh draft of the proposed document on RIPE Task Forces and to make this available for your review here. An onward link leads to an alternative presentation of the draft, in which recent changes are highlighted. We are very grateful to Boris Duval and Antony Gollan, who did most of the real work. We plan to close the review period just before 24:00 UTC on Sunday 10 April next, and to announce a two-week last-call period shortly after that. Please let us know what you think, in sufficient numbers so that we can understand whether the draft enjoys community consensus. For your convenience, the table below shows the dates when successive drafts of this proposed RIPE Document were announced. DateFromRemarks 19 Nov 2021M.Kuehne002363 Draft; suggestions invited 16 Dec 2021N.O'Reilly002402 Update; last call closing 14 Jan 3 Feb 2022N.O'Reilly002444 Update; last call extended to 18 Feb 23 Mar 2022N.O'Reillyv3 Fresh draft for review until 10 Apr Best regards, Niall O’Reilly -- 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 ********************************************** 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. -- 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 ********************************************** 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 Gert, Clearly the goal is to get the job done. If TF members "a, b and c" agree to work on that, but they disagree to work with "d, e and f", and "d, e and f" have no problem to work with "a, b and c", the ones that are avoiding the work to be done is "a, b and c", not the others. So, either we form two TFs for the same and then see the results for 2 TF for the community to decide, or, because the problem to work with others is "a, b and c" they should either decide to change their view, or not joint the TF. Further to that, are you suggesting that the Chair should ask all the possible volunteers if they are ok to work with all the others? And if not, the Chair should benefit "a, b and c" instead of "d, e and f"? This sounds to me like extremely worrying and outrageous. It is not a clear way to say the Chair should discriminate "d, e and f" because others aren't willing to work with them? Are we going to investigate the reasons and decide based on that? Or in that case the Chair should say "if a, b and c are willing to work with the others, they are free to leave, but we will not exclude anyone". Or are we saying that the transparency, openness, inclusivity, diversity, etc., etc., from this RIR community is no longer there? My personal way, when I'm contributing with anything related to any community is that I must take apart any differences (personal, business, others?) that I may have (if any, because I don't feel actually, I've any), and work towards the goals in the direction that I believe is best for the community. According to what you say, it looks like my personal view into "contribute to the community" is not shared by you; fine we can disagree on that, but that's not seems sufficient for trying to exclude others, it is your personal decision, not a community decision. How many times we have disagreed with colleagues about this or that proposal or comment in the list, or whatever, and that doesn't mean that in the next minute we find a way to reach consensus in the same or another topic? And if there is no consensus (or chairs believe there is no consensus), even if we go for an appeal, never mind what is the final decision, even if we keep disagreeing and we openly express our opinions, that doesn't mean that we should not be able to continue working together, right? If we accept your position, we are asking the Chair to discriminate one way or the other. This is unacceptable. This is not about "a, b, c, d, e, or f", is about what is the best for the community, but NEVER excluding others. If we exclude others, this is no longer open, this is no longer a community. As you correctly say very well, if a TF is excluding one or more volunteers, then those volunteers can do the work in parallel with the TF, and they can publish it and the community will need to hear both. If the Chair disallow that, again, we are enforcing the Chair to discriminate people, but the worst is that the community will need to look into the results of both TFs (if both become "official" or not is not relevant), because all them, anyone from the community, have the right to publish any documents that they do for the overall good of the community. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 10/4/22, 17:34, "ripe-list en nombre de Gert Doering" <ripe-list-bounces@ripe.net en nombre de gert@space.net> escribió: 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 -- 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 ********************************************** 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.

No, you're making the mistake if you interpret that I'm considering a single case. When I read any proposed document, I try to think ahead in what can be wrong "in the future" not just according to the past, because clearly the goal is to avoid issues in the future. The past only tells us what was wrong, but the past has no "exclusivity" and can't be taken "alone". As you say, precisely because there is no abundance of volunteers, we can't have the risk that anyone may be excluded. Also, see how the other RIRs that have "TF" (called also WGs), APNIC and LACNIC, don't have any way to restrict participation. Recently in APNIC there was a call for volunteers for a WG to review the complete policy manual. There were over 130 volunteers if I recall correctly, that joined the mailing list. However, the real participation was about 4-5 people, and we did the job by splitting the most important changes in different policy proposals, all resolved by the very small set of people and almost all them reached consensus. No issues! Another example is a running WG in LACNIC, for making a single policy proposal for the chairs elections process, as they were 2 competing policy proposals and we could say that they were almost a copy of the earlier one, so the chairs couldn't determine consensus (or actually I must say that both should have reached consensus). The call for the WG was open, only 5 people joined and we are doing the job. Again, no issues. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 10/4/22, 22:49, "ripe-list en nombre de Gert Doering" <ripe-list-bounces@ripe.net en nombre de gert@space.net> escribió: Hi, On Sun, Apr 10, 2022 at 08:01:23PM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list wrote: > Clearly the goal is to get the job done. > > If TF members "a, b and c" agree to work on that, but they disagree to work with "d, e and f", and "d, e and f" have no problem to work with "a, b and c", the ones that are avoiding the work to be done is "a, b and c", not the others. Jordi, your cases are hypothetical. You are making a big fuzz out of one (1) task force that did not want to let you (Jordi) join. Get over it. There is no general abundance of volunteers that are denied entry in large numbers of task forces of great importance in RIPE land. 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 -- 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 ********************************************** 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 12 Apr 2022, at 15:28, Niall O'Reilly wrote:

I also see that the text can be made clearer, and will revise it accordingly before making a last call for comments.

The revised text is now available here: [https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-documents/other-documents/ripe-task-forces-definition-and-guidelines-v4](https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-documents/other-documents/ripe-task-forces-definition-and-guidelines-v4) Although I don’t believe there are any material changes, the result of revision for clarity and readability is that the new text is noticeably different from the previous draft. For this reason, I feel that it would be premature to make a last call just yet (as was originally intended). Please take the opportunity to review the latest (v4) draft, and to comment, if you wish, before 06:00 UTC on Monday, 30 May 2022. I expect to announce a 2-week last-call period shortly after this deadline. I am aware that acknowledgements need to be added, and plan to arrange to have these included during the last-call period. I am glad to take this opportunity to thank all of the following people for their comments and suggestions: Nigel Titley, Desiree Miloshevic, Mirjam Kühne, Peter Koch, Daniel Karrenberg, Randy Bush, Sander Steffann, Jordi Palet Martínez, Gert Döring, Kurtis Lindqvist, and especially Boris Duval and Antony Gollan for their excellent and indefatigable editorial support. Best regards, Niall O’Reilly

Hi folks, I second what Markus said, this is great! Thanks to all people who contributed to that document! Best, Max Anno domini 2022 Markus de Brün scripsit:

Niall,

thank you for the update. I find version 4 to be well written, easier to comprehend and also more complete (with regards to its content) than the previous versions. I support the document.

The section "Output" contains a typo, i think: "a task force identify alternative approaches" -> "a task force identifies alternative approaches"

Regards, Markus

On 09.05.22 15:50, Niall O'Reilly wrote:

...

On 12 Apr 2022, at 15:28, Niall O'Reilly wrote:

...

I also see that the text can be made clearer, and will revise it accordingly before making a last call for comments.

The revised text is now available here: [https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-documents/other-documents/ripe-task-forces-definition-and-guidelines-v4](https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-documents/other-documents/ripe-task-forces-definition-and-guidelines-v4)

Although I don’t believe there are any material changes, the result of revision for clarity and readability is that the new text is noticeably different from the previous draft. For this reason, I feel that it would be premature to make a last call just yet (as was originally intended).

Please take the opportunity to review the latest (v4) draft, and to comment, if you wish, before 06:00 UTC on Monday, 30 May 2022.

I expect to announce a 2-week last-call period shortly after this deadline.

I am aware that acknowledgements need to be added, and plan to arrange to have these included during the last-call period.

I am glad to take this opportunity to thank all of the following people for their comments and suggestions: Nigel Titley, Desiree Miloshevic, Mirjam Kühne, Peter Koch, Daniel Karrenberg, Randy Bush, Sander Steffann, Jordi Palet Martínez, Gert Döring, Kurtis Lindqvist, and especially Boris Duval and Antony Gollan for their excellent and indefatigable editorial support.

Best regards,

Niall O’Reilly

--

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

-- Fortschritt bedeutet, einen Schritt so zu machen, daß man den nächsten auch noch machen kann.