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: 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. 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. 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. 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. 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-boun...@ripe.net en nombre de niall.orei...@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
