On 20/10/2017 14:11, Malcolm Hutty wrote:
> However, when the taskforce asked NCC staff to look into this, they > discovered (to their own surprise) that the NCC has no formal document > of any nature that sets out a normative expectation that the RIPE NCC > will so much as take community policy into account. That seems a curious > omission. I agree this is not easy to find. But it is there: ripe-161 - "A New Structure for the RIPE NCC / De-Facto Organisational Rules (Revised)" states: "The RNA (RIPE NCC Association, dfk) will be advised by the well established informal group of technical experts known as RIPE (Reseaux IP Europeens)." ripe-350 - "Policy Development Process in RIPE" states: "Since its creation in 1989, RIPE has from time to time agreed on common practices. These common practices may come in different forms and/or under different names: - best common practice (or BCP), - recommendations to the community, - requests to the RIPE NCC, - recommendations to the RIPE NCC, - or just policy." The PDP has evolved; it closely involves the RIPE NCC in the policy process. The one thing you will not find is an *obligation* of the RIPE NCC Association to do exactly what RIPE requests. It has been pointed out that this is not feasible to achieve in any formal sense. I repeat: The architecture of RIPE and the RIPE NCC is constructed such that the *huge* overlap between RIPE participants and RIPE NCC members ensures that the RIPE NCC association acts on requests and recommendations from the RIPE community. The overlap prevents serious conflicts between RIPE and the RIPE NCC. Aside: ripe-161 also deals with defenses against capture of the RIPE NCC Association. It may be worth checking if these defenses are still effective after the various changes to the RIPE NCC Articles in recent years. This appears to be outside the scope of this task force, but I would support if the task force recommended this be looked at. > You are quite right to point out that the NCC has faithfully followed > the community's will, and while you and your fellow Board members remain > in charge, I am sure it will continue to do so. But part of the purpose > of this exercise is to help create the conditions that make it more > likely that your legacy in this respect is honoured by those that > succeed you. Nothing we do can guarantee that will happen, but writing > down that the NCC's history of implementing community policy is more > than a mere coincidence of opinion will both help guide future Boards > and give ammunition to Board members against anyone who argues that the > NCC should do otherwise. I have no objection at all against writing down the history and documenting the status quo in an informal and informative way. I have indeed offered several times to support the task force in this endeavor by contributing my first-hand knowledge of the evolution of RIPE and the RIPE NCC. Maybe the task force could best look at updating ripe-161 as a first action? > Jim correctly pointed out that the community itself, not being an entity > with legal personality, cannot sign an MoU. That removes one option for > how such a normative statement might be recorded - but there are several > others. The NCC does, after all, have contracts with its members. > > Personally, I think a better idea that I would like to see considered is > to write into the RIPE NCC's governing statutes that one of the purposes > of the NCC is to implement RIPE community policy. Of course this phrase > would have to be suitable qualified to avoid the pitfall you mention, > but I do not think that insurmountable, or even difficult: the NCC does > have lawyers, after all. I'll repeat myself: "I encourage everyone proposing additional formalism to first state very clearly the concrete *need* for adding it and to provide examples of concrete instances where the absence of such formalism has caused problems. Speculative instances in the future only count if there is consensus that they are either very likely to occur or have catastrophic consequences. In the latter case additional scrutiny of whether the added formalism will actually prevent the catastrophe is required. Repeat: state a *need* not a desire or other lesser reason." > Finally, may I gently suggest that the extremely defensive attitude of > some prominent community members to the work of this Taskforce is not a > good look. Most of us are reasonably long-standing members of the > community ourselves, and fully share both its values and well-proven way > of doing things. Our aim is to support this community, not to undermine it. <good humour> <tounge somewhat-in-cheek> [all substance of this message above this line. no *need* to read on.] Malcolm, In the unlikely event your characterization of "prominent" and "defensive" meant to include me ;-) ... I assure you that I am not defensive, not in the least! I have done my part, specifically for RIPE and the RIPE NCC. Both have been spectacularly successful. In addition to a lot of other useful things we have made and implemented policies that successfully managed the exhaustion of IPv4, a finite resource! This has great impact on businesses and individuals. I have nothing to prove or to be defensive about. However I do care greatly about the future of RIPE and the RIPE NCC. Anything can almost always be improved, but I also firmly believe in keeping things as simple as possible. I am naturally skeptical of adding new parts to an existing system unless there is a clearly established need to do so. "In anything at all, perfection is finally attained not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away." (Antoine de Saint-Exupéry) The task force chair asked some concrete questions to the community and I gave my personal and reasoned answers. I'll let the community decide how that looks. Let me assure you that I have great respect for anyone doing volunteer work in RIPE. Fortunately we have a long tradition in RIPE to arrive at consensus through discussion. Such discussions are not always easy and without disagreements. I always assume everyone has the best intentions until clearly proven otherwise by their actions, however "The road to dysfunctional complexity is paved with good intentions" (Bernard de Clairveaux, paraphrased). I am looking forward to more discussion at the meeting starting tomorrow. Daniel speaking as co-founder of RIPE, initial co-architect of the RIPE NCC association, steady contributor to both and *not* speaking as a RIPE NCC employee
