Skip to main content

You're viewing an archived page. It is no longer being updated.

Minutes of Remote RIPE 80 Planning Call

25 March 2020

Erik Bais, Sandoche Balakrichenan, Nina Bargisen, Fergal Cunningham, João Damas, Julf Helsingius, Hans Petter Holen, Paul Hoogsteder, Raymond Jetten, Jelte Jansen, Daniel Karrenberg, Shane Kerr, Mirjam Kühne, Franziska Lichtblau, Martina de Mas, Remco van Mook, Brian Nisbet, Bijal Sanghani, William Sylvester, Denis Walker, Martin Winter

Hans Petter presented a preliminary meeting plan, listing a number of sessions that could be part of the meeting:

  • RIPE NCC GM and RIPE NCC Services WG would need to take place
  • Newcomers session (possibly as a webinar prior to the meeting)
  • RIPE Community Plenary: Hans Petter thought this was important and should take place. Current agenda items:
    • NomCom report
    • RIPE Database Requirements task force report
    • RIPE Chairs collective tasks and responsibilities (Erik and João working on a draft document)
    • Code of Conduct (Hans Petter said he would follow-up in the Diversity Task Force list suggesting that the document the document be split into three and to form a small, dedicated task force with a chair that could then finalise the documents based on input from the community and the RIPE NCC's impact analysis).
  • Some plenary sessions (decided by the PC)
  • Possibly some BoFs and/or training sessions (decided by the PC)
  • Some WG sessions (decided by individual WGs)

Questions to the group:

  1. Should they keep the meeting plan as is?
  2. Should they reduce the meeting to one day? Two days?
  3. Half days rather than full days?
  4. If WGs wanted longer work sessions, could they do this outside the RIPE Meeting week?

Feedback from participants:

Franziska (PC Chair): 27 submissions received so far, with six selected. One of these six had withdrawn (preferred to do face-to-face). The PC agreed that they would like to give those who submitted talks the option to withdraw their submission. An open question was what to do with RACI talks.

Martin (Open Source WG): Possibly a very short WG session. Suggested they keep the meeting to one day, otherwise they might lose people on the second day. Also suggested they facilitate some social interaction: Etherpad and/or the networking app.

João and Shane (DNS WG) agreed to do a remote WG session every month until the next face-to-face RIPE Meeting to keep the community together and to work on a number of items.

Bijal (RIPE NCC Services WG): Suggested they not to have sessions longer than one hour and possibly spread the meeting out across multiple days in May.

Brian (Anti-Abuse WG): Probably wouldn’t need more than 15 minutes for the WG session this time. In favour of a shorter, sharper meeting and didn't think they should spread it out.

Ray (IPv6 WG): In favour of 2-3 days during the RIPE Meeting week rather than scattered over multiple weeks.

Remco (Connect WG): Suggested they keep the virtual RIPE Meeting short and within the original meeting week, though one day might be too limiting. Possibly 2-3 days - Day 1. Plenary; Day 2. RIPE NCC Services WG + GM; Day 3. WG sessions. If WGs or others wanted to organise additional meetings outside that
week, that was fine.

Erik (Address-Policy WG): There were currently no open policies to be discussed. WG chair selection and the RIPE NCC update was all they had on their agenda. Generally in favour of a shorter meeting during that week, possibly three or four half-days.

Denis (DB WG): Possibly a 20-30 minute session. Agreed they should keep meeting within that week.

Jelte (PC member): In favour of shorter sessions during RIPE Meeting week. Also suggested they allow for break-out sessions.

Julf (Cooperation WG): Participated in the remote ICANN meeting and found that 6-8 hour remote meeting days were way too long. Liked the idea of half-days.

Florence (Connect WG) suggested they think about a virtual RIPE dinner.

Fergal said he also preferred to have the meeting during the RIPE 80 Meeting week as this made it easier to organise. The RIPE NCC was currently testing a number of technical options, and Zoom looked promising. They were also talking with the stenographers to see if they could be supported via Zoom. In general, they would try to cater for everything the WG chairs and PC needed.

Preliminary summary (by Daniel):

  • Community-related sessions on one day
  • Don’t make sessions too long
  • Need one single focus point where all activities and information can be found. This should include a detailed schedule that shows what talks and discussions will take place and when.

Next steps:

  • RIPE NCC Executive Board Meeting to discuss options
  • Another call with WG chairs and PC next week
  • Possibly more calls to finalise the meeting format and agenda

AOB: RIPE Chair Transition

Hans Petter said he would start his new role as RIPE NCC Managing Director on 1 May. He suggested that he stepped down as RIPE Chair on 30 April. The process called for the RIPE WG Chairs to appoint an interim chair and he offered to fill this role.

Daniel (NomCom Chair) described the process and current planning:

  • The plan was to finish the NomCom process no later than 15 June
  • Then the RIPE NCC Executive Board needed to confirm the decision (hopefully by the end of June)
  • The transition to the new RIPE Chair could be finalised by the end of July if the new Chair was able to start early. In any case, it was expected that the transition could happen before RIPE 81.

That meant there might be a maximum of three months overlap. He asked the WG chairs not to appoint one of the nominated candidates as interim chair.