Re: [ripe-list] excuses for my response to provocations in the list yesterday
On 10.02.2021 13:32, Nigel Titley wrote: > > > On 10/02/2021 12:27, Carlos Friaças via ripe-list wrote: > >> 2 or 3 terms, plus a "freeze period" (1 term? 1 year?) to avoid >> cases where a chair "jumps" to another WG. > > I would completely support this if there weren't already problems in > getting enough people to take on the extra workload of becoming a WG > chair. > It could also be the other way round. People might be discouraged to run against the long-time chairs. Arnold OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [ripe-list] excuses for my response to provocations in the list yesterday
I'm convinced that if you allow infinite terms, most of the people in the WG, will support the same existing folks. I did, now I realize it was a wrong decision in some case. In Spanish we have a said "the bad known is better than the good to know" (not sure if the translation is correct, or there is an alternative in English) - and I followed that advice. I think it is wrong that the PDP has nothing to say with the selection of the chairs. The PDP is about policy making. They chairs are responsible of determining the consensus. No sense that it is not relevant. Responding to Sander/Nigel to make it a single email: 1) Basically, it is the same people speaking up about any policy proposal in any WG, of course many be not 100% coincidence, but a very high %. It would be a good analysis even if I'm mistaken, for the chairs-team to expose. It means there is no sense to discuss policy in different WGs, it means a small set of the community is interested. It means that people that may be interested in discussing people is lost because it forces them to participate in different WGs. There are many takes on this. 2) Some people may be willing to serve, of course they may prefer a specific WG, so then having 2 WG chairs instead of 3 will not help. But some others are willing to server in any WG (or a subset of them). 3) In all the RIRs "all" the policies are run by the community, no matter is the address policy or something else. I'm not sure if Sander was referring to ARIN. It is true that in that case, as it was commented a few weeks ago in the list, ARIN did a "gift" to the community accepting that the community runs the PDP and anyway, this is done via the AC, which is selected by membership ... I know I'm writing it in a very simple way, but basically is that. And this is a completely different model than the other 4 RIRs. In my personal opinion a broken model because the community lose the control of the proposals very early in the process. 4) People experience in a job is very good, but up to a certain point. Afterwards, they may be bored, pay less attention, and become "kings". This is happening. They are taking "usual practices" (from them) as rules of the PDP. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 10/2/21 16:01, "ripe-list en nombre de Gert Doering" escribió: Hi, On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 03:57:44PM +0100, Jan Zorz - Go6 wrote: > As also Sander pointed out - there is a process in place for WG chairs > rotation and if a chair is not doing her/his job properly - the WG will > most probably make sure that the chair rotation happens ;) Also, it should be pointed out that the PDP has no authority on WG chair rotation or selection. Gert Doering -- creaky chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 ** 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.
Re: [ripe-list] excuses for my response to provocations in the list yesterday
Hi Jordi, On 10.02.21 14:13, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list wrote: > Hi Nigel, > > I've the feeling that in part, the lack of volunteers is due to the fact that > existing ones can continue in perpetuity. I do not see any facts supporting your claim. > Also the details that we have in some cases 3 WG chairs and that means 1 less > chair available for another WG. Note that I think that, considering that in > other RIRs, there is a "single" WG for what it really is more important (PDP) > and they are able to cope with the workload, this could also be the same here. This make no sense. If I would like to volunteer as a Adress Policy WG chair, it does not mean I would like to volunteer as IOT WG chair. > May be a model where we have a single "policy WG" (all the policies discussed > in the same list) and the other WG for non-policy discussions. > > If we compare the "actual" participants in policy discussions, among all the > WGs, I think basically is the same set of 20 people. I think that tells a lot! I assure you, there is more than one WG, that I have not active taking part in and do not want to be forced to take in. It is not because I do not value other WGs, but I lack the time for meaningful contributions. If you want to foster participation, please do not try it by hinder actual participants. If a such small crowd of actual participants is real, I have no data on this, it contradicts your own statement of "lack of volunteers is due to the fact that existing ones can continue in perpetuity". > In other RIRs, all the policy proposals are managed in a single "main" PDP WG. > > I've policy proposals under discussion in several RIRs, that precisely ask > for 2 years terms, maximum 2 consecutive terms and then a minimim of 1-year > "rest". I do not support this proposal. Kind regards, Christoph
Re: [ripe-list] excuses for my response to provocations in the list yesterday
On Wed, 10 Feb 2021, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list wrote: Hi Nigel, I've the feeling that in part, the lack of volunteers is due to the fact that existing ones can continue in perpetuity. Hi, Just let me share a thought about this: "existing ones can continue in pertetuity" For me long standing members of this community are appreciated! I really miss reading those community members that reached the retirement age and reduced (or ceased, *sigh*) their participation. Experience is valuable. Advices are valuable. What is *extremely* strange to me is people not accepting that others may not accept their advice. If following a given advice was "mandatory" then it would be an "order", not an advice. Cheers, Carlos ps: i'm not over my 5 messages/day quota, or am i...? :-)
Re: [ripe-list] excuses for my response to provocations in the list yesterday
Hi, On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 03:57:44PM +0100, Jan Zorz - Go6 wrote: > As also Sander pointed out - there is a process in place for WG chairs > rotation and if a chair is not doing her/his job properly - the WG will > most probably make sure that the chair rotation happens ;) Also, it should be pointed out that the PDP has no authority on WG chair rotation or selection. Gert Doering -- creaky chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [ripe-list] excuses for my response to provocations in the list yesterday
On 10/02/2021 15:42, Nigel Titley wrote: I've policy proposals under discussion in several RIRs, that precisely ask for 2 years terms, maximum 2 consecutive terms and then a minimim of 1-year "rest". I'm very much against term limits. I see no reason to remove someone from office as long as they are performing the job properly. Nigel Agreed 200%. As also Sander pointed out - there is a process in place for WG chairs rotation and if a chair is not doing her/his job properly - the WG will most probably make sure that the chair rotation happens ;) Cheers, Jan
Re: [ripe-list] excuses for my response to provocations in the list yesterday
On 10/02/2021 13:13, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list wrote: > Hi Nigel, > > I've the feeling that in part, the lack of volunteers is due to the fact that > existing ones can continue in perpetuity. Well, possibly, but most of the WGs I've had anything to do with are quite assiduous in trying to recruit new chairs. > Also the details that we have in some cases 3 WG chairs and that means 1 less > chair available for another WG. Note that I think that, considering that in > other RIRs, there is a "single" WG for what it really is more important (PDP) > and they are able to cope with the workload, this could also be the same here. That's certainly a viable model and it seems to work in, for example, ARIN, but I suspect that may be partly because the majority of proposals are concerned with address policy, so the "PDP" working group becomes a de-facto Address Policy WG. I'm not saying that this is a bad thing but I do think that the RIPE way of doing things encourages the development of non Address policy policies. However this is just an opinion. > If we compare the "actual" participants in policy discussions, among all the > WGs, I think basically is the same set of 20 people. I think that tells a lot! I does tell a lot, but what does it tell us? > In other RIRs, all the policy proposals are managed in a single "main" PDP WG. See above... > I've policy proposals under discussion in several RIRs, that precisely ask > for 2 years terms, maximum 2 consecutive terms and then a minimim of 1-year > "rest". I'm very much against term limits. I see no reason to remove someone from office as long as they are performing the job properly. Nigel
Re: [ripe-list] excuses for my response to provocations in the list yesterday
Hi Nigel, I've the feeling that in part, the lack of volunteers is due to the fact that existing ones can continue in perpetuity. Also the details that we have in some cases 3 WG chairs and that means 1 less chair available for another WG. Note that I think that, considering that in other RIRs, there is a "single" WG for what it really is more important (PDP) and they are able to cope with the workload, this could also be the same here. May be a model where we have a single "policy WG" (all the policies discussed in the same list) and the other WG for non-policy discussions. If we compare the "actual" participants in policy discussions, among all the WGs, I think basically is the same set of 20 people. I think that tells a lot! In other RIRs, all the policy proposals are managed in a single "main" PDP WG. I've policy proposals under discussion in several RIRs, that precisely ask for 2 years terms, maximum 2 consecutive terms and then a minimim of 1-year "rest". El 10/2/21 13:32, "ripe-list en nombre de Nigel Titley" escribió: On 10/02/2021 12:27, Carlos Friaças via ripe-list wrote: > 2 or 3 terms, plus a "freeze period" (1 term? 1 year?) to avoid cases > where a chair "jumps" to another WG. I would completely support this if there weren't already problems in getting enough people to take on the extra workload of becoming a WG chair. Nigel ** 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.
Re: [ripe-list] excuses for my response to provocations in the list yesterday
On 10/02/2021 12:27, Carlos Friaças via ripe-list wrote: > 2 or 3 terms, plus a "freeze period" (1 term? 1 year?) to avoid cases > where a chair "jumps" to another WG. I would completely support this if there weren't already problems in getting enough people to take on the extra workload of becoming a WG chair. Nigel
[ripe-list] New on RIPE Labs: RIPE Chair Team Report - January 2021
Dear colleagues, The RIPE Chair reports on the RIPE Chair team's activities so far in 2021 and looks at a number of noteworthy community developments that have taken place so far this year. Read more on RIPE Labs: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/mirjam_kuhne/ripe-chair-team-report-january-2021 Kind regards, Alun Davies RIPE Labs Editor RIPE NCC
Re: [ripe-list] excuses for my response to provocations in the list yesterday
Hi, Please see inline. On Wed, 10 Feb 2021, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list wrote: Hi all, (...) It is even more sad that some of those provocations come from people that are (or have been) chairs of WGs and I think they must be exemplary. It looks like some of them believe they are kings. Maybe one more thing to change in the PDP is a maximum number of terms to avoid this. I completely support this! 2 or 3 terms, plus a "freeze period" (1 term? 1 year?) to avoid cases where a chair "jumps" to another WG. I think also sanctions of the AUP should be stricter in those cases and this shows that also we are missing in the PDP a procedure for recalling chairs. For those that aren?t aware, this just happened in AFRINIC (a Recall Committee has decided that both cochairs are recalled with immediate effect, in short because they violated the PDP and took decisions or attributions beyond what is set in the PDP). I think the general idea is not to have frequent "impeachments", but establish a process where a WG chair change (against his/her own will, when they violate the PDP) isn't halted at some point by one of its friends. Regards, Carlos
[ripe-list] excuses for my response to provocations in the list yesterday
Hi all, Yesterday I should have reacted in a different way, ignoring the provocations, so I want to ask excuses for that. I think we (all) in those situations must privately ask the chairs to enforce he AUP and call to the order to the authors of inappropriate postings. I need to make clear that I still believe (not just this time) it is wrong to issue any subtle "warning" (or whatever you want to call it) to participants in any discussion. We, as it can't be other way, can disagree if a proposal, idea, problem statement, solution, is good or bad; that's it and that's what the discussion should be about. We are all free to ignore/delete emails from anyone if we believe that he/she is sending too many emails, but those emails, in general, except in clear cases that we all remember for spam, publicity of electoral candidates, etc., need to be allowed without restriction, because people are discussing about something that is in the scope of the list (apply this to any WG list as well). If we believe that something is out of the scope, we should call the chairs to tell to the poster, but not do ourselves and even less, do what I did: responding to them. If we look into previous discussions, same people that attacked me yesterday has sent (many times) more than "n" emails. So, if we want to define that, let's have it in the PDP or AUP, so it applies to everybody in the same way. My response to their provocation is only upsetting more people from the community against my proposals or ideas, so I'm helping them to achieve what they wanted: to ruin the discussion. Is not an excuse, but you also need to understand that this is not a consequence of a few minutes of "bad energy" from my side, but also a cumulus of private emails (sometimes from the same people that exposed themselves in the list), and attacks in different lists (often from the same people as well), such as mentions to the "Spanish Inquisition", among others. I tend to not overreact to those, even ignore them, or answer politely, but it seems that I should instead, report every single case to the chairs and avoid forming "dark clouds" and then having "storms". I'm not alone on this (and I got a couple of people writing me about that this time). We discussed long time ago, I think it was in the Diversity TF, how people take advantage of better knowledge of English to abuse and attack non-native speaker ones (or people that is not so fluent). We have mention about the lack of participation. Those subtle attacks definitively don't help to improve that, on the other way around, some people get scared, overreact, or go away. It is even more sad that some of those provocations come from people that are (or have been) chairs of WGs and I think they must be exemplary. It looks like some of them believe they are kings. Maybe one more thing to change in the PDP is a maximum number of terms to avoid this. I think also sanctions of the AUP should be stricter in those cases and this shows that also we are missing in the PDP a procedure for recalling chairs. For those that aren’t aware, this just happened in AFRINIC (a Recall Committee has decided that both cochairs are recalled with immediate effect, in short because they violated the PDP and took decisions or attributions beyond what is set in the PDP). Regards, Jordi @jordipalet ** 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.
