You're viewing an archived page. It is no longer being updated.
|Thursday, 17 October 2019, 16:00 - 17:30
|Hans Petter Holen
The presentation is available at: https://ripe79.ripe.net/archives/video/278
Hans Petter Holen clarified that the correct email list to use to discuss RIPE Community matters is the RIPE Discussion List.
The talk is available at: https://ripe79.ripe.net/archives/video/279
Stefan Wahl, ECIX / Megaport, asked the presenter how many volunteers needed to apply to the RIPE Nominating Committee to make the random selection process work.
Daniel Karrenberg replied that 100 people would be ideal as 300 people within the community meet the criteria. He added that the absolute minimum is 10 and is already fulfilled.
The presentation is available at: https://ripe79.ripe.net/archives/video/280
Randy Bush, Arrcus & IIJ, commented that producing requirements by committee will be difficult.
The presentation is available at: https://ripe79.ripe.net/archives/video/281
Chris Woodfield, Salesforce, mentioned that while RIPE Meetings are a great place to network with like-minded people it is not the right venue to seek romantic relationships.
Anna Wilson, HEAnet, thanked the presenters and pointed out that legal responsibility for misbehaviour at RIPE meeting belongs to the RIPE NCC. She added that the impact analysis proposed was a good way forward and that a stronger Code of Conduct (CoC) was needed.
Alexis Karney, GitHub, shared that her company was not sending employees to conferences with no clear CoC and that the RIPE community risked losing people over this issue. Sasha Romijn agreed.
Hans Petter Holen clarified that RIPE meetings do have a CoC but needs to be strengthened.
Daniel Karrenberg suggested a CoC with only light sanctions might be a better way forward than one with hard sanctions (e.g. interdiction to participate in future RIPE meetings).
Brian Nisbet pointed out that the current CoC had only light sanctions and failed to protect attendees against misbehaviour.
Salam Yamout and Maria Häll, RIPE NCC Executive Board, thanked the presenters on behalf of the board for the work done and reminded the audience that everybody is welcome at RIPE meetings and that diversity is needed in the community.
Alexander Isavnin, Internet Protection Society, suggested that attendees from outside Western Europe might not fully understand the CoC because of cultural differences and asked the presenters to be mindful of this.
Anna Wilson stressed out that the community should add sufficient options to the CoC, when handling misbehaviour at meetings, in order to not be backed into a corner when it occurs.
Filiz Yilmaz, Asteroid International/PeeringDB, asked to draw a list of consequences that an offender may face to empower people to get out of a difficult situation by referring to the CoC.
Hans Petter Holen thanked the presenters and clarified that if the new CoC did not reach consensus there will be two other options. The first option will be for the RIPE Chair to approve the document on behalf of the community, and the second option will be for the RIPE NCC to write and implement a new CoC. However, he hoped that the community will reach consensus on a new CoC by itself.
The presentation is available at: https://ripe79.ripe.net/archives/video/282
Will van Gulik, Nimag Networks, mentioned that it took him time to understand how to correctly use the Policy Development Process (PDP) and to make a proposal, but that he found the PDP efficient.
Jordi Palet, the IPv6 Company, looked at PDP participation data in other RIRs and found out that AFRINIC and APNIC performed better than RIPE. He added that something should be done to boost participation within the community.
Carlos Friacas, FCT/FCCN, pointed out that local communities were easier to reach and engage with as people are sharing the same culture and language. He proposed to find a way to replicate this local engagement effect at the PDP scale.
Rüdiger Volk, Deutsche Telekom Technik GmbH, suggested to take a step back to think about PDP requirements. He added that the community is now much more diverse than it used to be and that the PDP process should reflect those changes.
Peter Koch, DENIC eG, said that the statistics mentioned in Petrit’s presentation should weight in population and community sizes. Nurani Nimpuno, Asteroid, added that we should reach out to underrepresented communities in the PDP process.
Hervé Clément, Orange, said that PDP email threads were hard to summarise and therefore hard to share with colleagues. He added that he found anonymous participation problematic.
Abdulkarim Oloyede, AFRINIC told the audience that AFRINIC has been organising monthly webinars to increase PDP participation in their region.
Sascha Luck suggested that all policy discussions should take place on one mailing list, like it is the case in other RIRs.
The presentation is available at: https://ripe79.ripe.net/archives/video/283
There were no questions.