Filiz and all, [ Picking up an old, but not forgotten, conversation... ]
Regarding Daniel's mail ---- First, I find Daniel's comments about not wanting too much process odd because the initial draft seemed clearly focused on looking at what we have today, and making suggestions for improvement - not actually adding any processes at all. Further, reading Daniel's first suggested text I wouldn't actually have any idea what the work of the task force was going to be. ;) The second suggestion reads like exactly what the initial draft proposes, except with any detail about what the document would actually look like removed. In both cases it seems like an attempt to make a shorter statement of scope at the cost of actually being clear. Finally while the suggestion of a deadline seems like a good idea, I don't remember this being a requirement in the past (especially since task force members are volunteers, and there is no external/hard deadline in this case). But perhaps such deadlines were used? Or is there some specific date in this case that we need to be aware of? (If so, then we should probably mention that in the draft scope document.) Regarding the task force (TF) draft scope ---- Getting back to the TF's own proposed scope... Basically it seems completely reasonable to me. While I don't really think that any further wordsmithing is necessary, here are some comments on the latest proposed text: > - Review existing RIPE community structures, documentation and > processes to *evaluate* whether they are accountable and in alignment > with RIPE value Seems good to me. > Document existing RIPE community structures or processes. Honestly I am happy with the "where needed" in the original, but don't have a problem with this wording. It seems like extra work for the TF though. ;) > - Identify potential gaps where RIPE accountability could be improved > or strengthened Also seems good, although maybe "should" instead of "could"? After all, anything *can* be improved. :) > - Identify areas where communications efforts or materials may be > required Seems good. > - Publish recommendations for the RIPE community Seems good. In the end, I am mostly happy that there are people who care enough about the community to want to make sure that it stays relevant going forward; that includes both the TF members and people like Daniel and Randy who want to keep what is good about RIPE. Cheers, -- Shane At 2017-04-04 14:49:03 +0200 Filiz Yilmaz <koala...@gmail.com> wrote: > Daniel, all, > > Thank you for your input. > > We took some time with our response as we wanted to discuss this with the > task force during our meeting yesterday on Monday 3 April 2017. > > Your main points about the scope seem to be stemming from: > > 1. A concern that the TF will produce new processes > 2. The lack of a clear deadline > 3. A concern that the group may have a tendency towards needless complexity > or bureaucracy > > Regarding the first point, the answer is simply no – we will not produce > new processes. The TF members do not see this as within our scope at all. > What we do see as within our scope is basically reviewing what is in place > and identifying where accountability could be improved by filling in any > gaps – and documenting these findings together with recommendations in a > report. We hope that this report will help the RIPE community to decide > whether it would like to follow up on the TF’s recommendations and change > some existing processes or create new ones. > > In other words, the task force will not create any new processes, nor we > will change any. The RIPE community will eventually do this if it sees fit. > Our work is about helping this process. > > Having said that, we recognise that the draft scope's current wording is > not ideal. There had been suggestions at our meeting by various task force > members and we discussed making the following specific changes. We have > also outlined below where we do not see the need for a change for each of > the current draft scope points: > > - Review existing RIPE community structures, documentation and processes to > ensure they are accountable and in alignment with RIPE values > *We suggest changing this to: * > - Review existing RIPE community structures, documentation and processes to > *evaluate* whether they are accountable and in alignment with RIPE values > > - Document existing RIPE community structures or processes where needed > *We suggest changing this to: * > Document existing RIPE community structures or processes. > [This enables us to do a stock-taking exercise of the processes that are > relevant to an accountability analysis and that are currently already in > place. Note the "existing".] > > - Identify potential gaps where RIPE accountability could be improved or > strengthened > *We suggest NO change on this: * > This simply says make an analysis of what other potential structure or > process could exist to make RIPE accountability better. It does not say > fill those gaps. Our scope is to identify the gaps (as we see them) and > bring these to the attention of the community. > > - Identify areas where communications efforts or materials may be required > *We suggest NO change on this: * > This simply says to identify whether the existing material or the approach > used is at the desired quality for accountability. > > - Publish recommendations for the RIPE community > *We suggest NO change on this: * > This simply says to document whether the TF has recommendations for > specific improvements. Maybe some gaps will be found to be insignificant by > the TF. With this we will be publishing those thoughts too. It will be > helpful to share these with the RIPE community. > > Again, it will be up to the RIPE community if it wants to follow-up on the > recommendations of the TF and discuss further potential work. > > Regarding your point about the deadline, you are right that we do not have > one yet. However, I would be cautious of setting one at this stage. We have > just started our work and we plan to communicate and take input from the > RIPE community regularly. Depending on the input we receive, the deadline > can be determined later once we have a clearer idea of the work ahead. > > Regarding the third point, it is worth noting that many task force members > have been a part of the RIPE community for a while now. We know how this > community works and we do not have a desire to add needless complexity or > bureaucracy simply for the sake of it. The informality of the RIPE > community is one of its strengths. While we may end up recommending that > some processes be created or documented, we are certainly not starting from > an assumption that everything should be covered by process and > documentation. > > Finally, regarding RIPE values, it is worth noting that the task force > believes there is support for the “open, transparent and bottom-up” model. > While these are certainly not the sole values of the RIPE community, they > serve as a useful lens when assessing its accountability. > > With this, we would again like to hear from the RIPE community on the > revised draft scope discussion so the task force can focus its work within > the remits of it. As you can imagine, it is particularly hard to produce > work as long as scope stays in draft status. In fact, even setting a > deadline is highly attached to the scope of the TF. > > Please let us know if the changes above address the concerns so far and if > there are any other comments. > > Both notices of support or objections will be much appreciated and will > help us to structure our work in accordance with the community's guidance. > > Kind regards > Filiz Yilmaz & William Sylvester > > > On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 6:39 PM, Daniel Karrenberg <d...@ripe.net> wrote: > > > Filiz, William, task force members, > > > > Thank you for putting together this draft scope. > > > > After reading it a couple of times this sounds to me more and more like > > the charter for a RIPE 'formalisation committee' than like a document > > describing the *task* of a 'task force'. > > > > One of our 'RIPE values' that I personally consider quite important is > > that we are first and foremost pragmatic and that we are naturally > > skeptical of formalisation and creating too much 'process'. > > Maybe we should have a refreshing, in more than one sense of that word, > > discussion about our consensus on what our 'RIPE vlaues' are. > > But that is a little besides the point of my suggestion here. > > > > RIPE creates task forces to produce specific results and I suggest that > > we write this scoping document accordingly. What is it that the task > > force should produce? What is the time frame for it? The scope of a > > task force should *not* be to create or "document" new formal process on > > behalf of the community, nor should it be open ended. > > > > I offer two rough examples for writing down the scope: > > > > "The RIPE Accountability Task Force will build consensus in the RIPE > > community that our way of working is transparent and accountable by the > > first RIPE meeting in 2018." > > > > "The RIPE Accountabily Task Force will produce a document describing any > > deficiencies in the working of the RIPE community concerning > > transparency and accountability as well as suggestions on how to address > > these deficiencies. The task force will continuously collect community > > input and produce the final document in time for community discussion at > > the first RIPE meeting in 2018." > > > > Both approaches work for me. I am also not hammering on the detailed > > language or the specific deadline. The scope of a task force needs to be > > as concise as possible with a specific result and a specific deadline. > > > > Daniel > > "Contributing to the RIPE Community since 1989." ;-) > > > >
pgpNjp8UZvegk.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digitale handtekening
