Re: [ripe-list] Nominations solicited: 2023 Rob Blokzijl Award

[Nigel Titley via ripe-list]

On 22/08/2023 18:03, Carsten Schiefner wrote:

Hi Michele -

On 22.08.2023 18:17, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote:

So it wasn’t awarded between 2018 and 2022?


no.

I'm not on the foundation's board - but Corona and even just a small 
award ceremony didn't go well together, me thinks.


Yes, our idea exactly.

Nigel

--

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

Re: [ripe-list] Re-opened Last Call for Draft Document: RIPE NCC Staff Participation in the RIPE Community

[Nigel Titley via ripe-list]

On 28/07/2023 13:14, Carsten Schiefner wrote:

On 28.07.2023 10:38, Daniel Karrenberg via ripe-list wrote:

[...]

As a community we have much to gain and little to loose by welcoming 
RIPE NCC staff to participate fully and -of course- transparently in 
the work we do.


On the other hand we have much to loose and little to gain by blindly 
copying behaviours and rules from public or corporate governance that 
do not fit our situation.


Absolutely!

+1.

Thanks, Daniel, for having transferred this into words so eloquently.


Including adding a touch of verisimilitude with the classic loose/lose 
mistype. Pure gold ;-)


Nigel

--

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

Re: [ripe-list] Re-opened Last Call for Draft Document: RIPE NCC Staff Participation in the RIPE Community

[Nigel Titley via ripe-list]

On 21/07/2023 16:32, Niall O'Reilly wrote:

Dear colleagues,

On 14 Jul 2023, at 13:29, I wrote:


Unless there is strong feedback from others in the community not to bother, I 
will work with the other authors to revise the draft accordingly. After that, 
Mirjam or I will announce a fresh last-call period.


The revised draft is now available here:
https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-documents/other-documents/ripe-ncc-staff-participation-in-the-ripe-community-draft-v2

I take the opportunity to announce a re-opened last call period,
to close at 04:00 UTC on Monday, 4 September 2023.


I'm actually (and surprisingly) reasonably happy with this revised draft.

Nigel

--

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

Re: [ripe-list] ripe-list Digest, Vol 139, Issue 9

[Nigel Titley via ripe-list]

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

--

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

Re: [ripe-list] ripe-list Digest, Vol 139, Issue 9

[Nigel Titley via ripe-list]

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

--

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

Re: [ripe-list] New Draft Document: RIPE NCC Staff Participation in the RIPE Community (Please review)

[Nigel Titley via ripe-list]

https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-documents/other-documents/ripe-ncc-staff-participation-in-the-ripe-community

Please review this document. If you have any comments, questions,
suggestions, please send them to this list or to me directly before 31
May 2023.


Whilst I'm happy with the document in general and especially with its 
clarity and brevity I'd like to sound a note of caution.


NCC staff are, as rightly noted, members of the community and have a 
right to contribute to its work. However they are in a slightly favoured 
position in that their management is fully aware of the community and 
are willing to allow them the time to contribute. This is not the case 
for many members of the community who may find it difficult to persuade 
their employer to allow the time for them to fully participate (our 
esteemed HPH, for example, had to take annual leave to participate as 
RIPE Chair).


This has the potential to skew the ability to contribute and over time 
could result in RIPE NCC staff being over represented in working groups 
and the like.


We've actually seen this in working groups where the NCC has provided, 
for example, minute taking resources. Now whereas this is a fine thing 
and relieves the WG Chair of the thankless task of browbeating someone 
to produce a set of minutes it does, doubtless, reduce the feeling of 
the WG being a truly community thing.


None of this should be interpreted as an attack in any way on RIPE NCC 
staff who generally do a fine job of decoupling their RIPE NCC and their 
RIPE hats.


Or am I just an Old Internet Fart (TM)? (Note that I'm not campaigning 
for the return of overhead transparencies).


Nigel

--

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

Re: [ripe-list] DRAFT: Principles for Remuneration of the RIPE Chairs

[Nigel Titley via ripe-list]

Joe

On 15/03/2023 12:38, Joe Abley wrote:

Making the amount of funding clear and known before people are asked to 
throw their hats in the ring makes it more likely that people will feel 
comfortable accepting nominations.


I think this actually addressed in the document by making it clear that 
if a Chair needs remuneration they may ask for it. If they don't then 
they don't have to receive it. I think that actually putting the level 
of available funding in the document is a bit too specific.


So I don't think this actually needs addressing

Nigel

--

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

Re: [ripe-list] DRAFT: Principles for Remuneration of the RIPE Chairs

[Nigel Titley via ripe-list]

On 15/03/2023 10:08, Joao Luis Silva Damas wrote:




On 14 Mar 2023, at 17:59, Nigel Titley via ripe-list  wrote:

Having said that, it may well be that continuing to accept that the RIPE NCC 
continues to employ the RIPE Chair(s) is the only workable solution.



Would it be any better if the RIPE Chair was remunerated out of funding from 
the Rob Blokzijl foundation?


Well, possibly. It would introduce an extra layer of insulation between 
the RIPE NCC and the RIPE Chair, but the major funding for the 
foundation is still the NCC.


I've got a slightly more ideological objection to the RIPE Chair being a 
full time position. I do feel that someone who's full time job is to be 
a Chair will tend to move towards a state of mind insulated from the 
Real World (tm), which is why I always felt that the Chair should be 
part time role. And there is always the temptation to make work to fill 
the time available.


However, this is a personal opinion.

Nigel

--

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

Re: [ripe-list] DRAFT: Principles for Remuneration of the RIPE Chairs

[Nigel Titley via ripe-list]

On 07/03/2023 16:40, Niall O'Reilly wrote:

Dear friends,

After much unexpected delay, I am at last ready to ask you to read and
comment on this DRAFT statement of principles for remuneration of the
RIPE Chairs, which follows from a recommendation of the RIPE 2020
Nominating Committee.

As your mail-reading app allows, you may choose to read this message
either as plain text or as HTML; I also attach a PDF edition.

I look forward to reading your comments.


Looking back on the original discussion I was reminded of how little 
consensus there was on the original proposals.


Are we happy that the proposal from the Nomcom is actually the one we 
are in favour of. Support for the three proposals in my original email 
seemed pretty well split amongst the three scenarios with maybe a slight 
bias against formulating a RIPE foundation to employ the RIPE chairs.


I'm still slightly worried about undue influence from the RIPE NCC on 
the RIPE chair despite all the assurances to the contrary from HPH and 
others. I know only too well how insidious such influences can be.


Having said that, it may well be that continuing to accept that the RIPE 
NCC continues to employ the RIPE Chair(s) is the only workable solution.


Nigel

--

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

Re: [ripe-list] DRAFT: Principles for Remuneration of the RIPE Chairs

[Nigel Titley via ripe-list]

Ladies and gentlemen

On 14/03/2023 15:14, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:

Kurtis,colleagues,

this is indeedone of the scenarios where the remuneration 
arrangementwouldnot work.We should not put a specific way to deal with 
situations like this in the document because we cannot foresee the 
details of the specific situation and we do have the governance 
structures in placeto take appropriate action. See below for a more 
verbose version of my thoughts on this.


I agree with Daniel. It is generally counter-productive to try and cater 
for all possible situations in such a document. One should instead state 
general principles and assume a modicum of common-sense and good will 
from those involved.


Nigel

--

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

Re: [ripe-list] Draft Document: RIPE Task Forces - Definition and Guidelines - v3

[Nigel Titley via ripe-list]

On 23/03/2022 14:38, Niall O'Reilly wrote:

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.


I know I'm behind the deadline but I'd just like to say that I approve 
of this V3. It's clear and uncluttered with extraneous baggage about 
voting and membership.


Nigel

--

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

Re: [ripe-list] Draft Document: RIPE Task Forces - Definition and Guidelines - v3

[Nigel Titley via ripe-list]

On 23/03/2022 14:38, Niall O'Reilly wrote:

Dear Colleagues,


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.


V3 seems to be a significant improvement and I, for one, am happy with it.

Nigel

--

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