Re: [ripe-list] ripe-list Digest, Vol 139, Issue 9
Hi guys People who work for a national lottery company are also citizens and residents of the country. But they are usually not allowed to buy lottery tickets. Pro footballers are also football supporters. But they cannot gamble on the outcome of a game. There are many examples of a group of people who act as an executive body or secretariat but cannot make decisions for the larger body they serve. For RIPE NCC staff, my view would be that it is fine for them to be involved in making decisions (openly and transparently) about technical and operational matters and to be actively involved in discussions about policies, which they often have a deep understanding of. But to determine the outcome of policy discussions and setting the policies that govern those operations, which they then implement, may be crossing the line on conflict of interest. cheers denis co-chair DB-Wg
From: Leo Vegoda <leo@vegoda.org> To: Franziska Lichtblau <rhalina@old-forest.org> Cc: RIPE List <ripe-list@ripe.net> Bcc: Date: Wed, 10 May 2023 08:01:45 -0700 Subject: Re: [ripe-list] New Draft Document: RIPE NCC Staff Participation in the RIPE Community (Please review) Hi,
On Tue, 9 May 2023 at 02:29, Franziska Lichtblau <rhalina@old-forest.org> wrote:
[...]
One question, as it's not clearly forbidden, is NCC staff allowed to be a WG chair, partake in NomCom, etc? I would say yes.
[...]
Regarding "to avoid giving direction" I am bit torn. I think to put the staff into a safe situation they need a little bit of freedom there. The line between what could be perceived as "giving direction" vs "sharing expertise" is very thin.
If a RIPE NCC staff member was a WG chair, could they make a decision on a policy proposal?
Kind regards,
Leo
On 11/05/2023 12:12, denis walker wrote:
Hi guys
People who work for a national lottery company are also citizens and residents of the country. But they are usually not allowed to buy lottery tickets. Pro footballers are also football supporters. But they cannot gamble on the outcome of a game. There are many examples of a group of people who act as an executive body or secretariat but cannot make decisions for the larger body they serve. For RIPE NCC staff, my view would be that it is fine for them to be involved in making decisions (openly and transparently) about technical and operational matters and to be actively involved in discussions about policies, which they often have a deep understanding of. But to determine the outcome of policy discussions and setting the policies that govern those operations, which they then implement, may be crossing the line on conflict of interest.
That's a good argument. So I think you are saying that RIPE NCC staff can take a full part in discussions but shouldn't actually be involved in the decisions about consensus, ie they shouldn't be a WG Chair. Although I have absolutely no doubt that RIPE NCC employees are in general capable of splitting their community and work hats, for the sake of the appearance of things they should avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest. All the best Nigel
On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 08:52, Nigel Titley via ripe-list <[ripe-list@ripe.net](mailto:On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 08:52, Nigel Titley via ripe-list <<a href=)> wrote:
Although I have absolutely no doubt that RIPE NCC employees are in general capable of splitting their community and work hats, for the sake of the appearance of things they should avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest.
Following on from my previous comment, I think it would be better to focus on avoiding *actual* conflicts of interest. I think worrying about appearances is what happens when there is a lack of understanding of the substance and, in the case of managing a useful and productive collaboration between the community and NCC-as-secretariat, the substance seems important. If the goal is to avoid a need for understanding, then it seems like the natural solution is that NCC staff should never be allowed to participate as members of the community at all. I don't think that is necessary or desirable. Joe
On 11/05/2023 14:51, Joe Abley wrote:
Following on from my previous comment, I think it would be better to focus on avoiding *actual* conflicts of interest. I think worrying about appearances is what happens when there is a lack of understanding of the substance and, in the case of managing a useful and productive collaboration between the community and NCC-as-secretariat,the substance seems important.
If the goal is to avoid a need for understanding, then it seems like the natural solution is that NCC staff should never be allowed to participate as members of the community at all. I don't think that is necessary or desirable.
If we had a perfect world then I'd agree with you. However I've been in this business long enough to know that if there is a faintest chance of a possible thought of a conflict then someone will complain. However, I'm not part of this community any longer in any real sense, and if people think this isn't important then go for it. Nigel
participants (3)
-
denis walker -
Joe Abley -
Nigel Titley