Draft RIPE 92 Working Group Chair Meeting Summary

21 May 2026
Edinburgh International Conference Centre

Attendees: Sebastian Becker, Markus de Bruen, Ben Cartwright-Cox, Marco d’Itri, Rob Evans, Will van Gulik, Julf Helsingius, Peter Hessler, Paul Hoogsteder, Raymond Jetten, Stavros Konstantaras, Alex le Heux, Franziska Lichtblau, Anna Maria Mandalari, Desiree Miloshevic, Moritz Müller, Leslie Nobile, Brian Nisbet, Yevheniya Nosyk, Christian Seitz, Peter Steinhäuser, Stephen Strowes, David Tatlisu, Wolfgang Tremmel, Leo Vegoda, Stefan Wahl, Marc van der Wal, Ulrich Wisser, János Zsakó

RIPE Chair Team: Mirjam Kühne, Anna Wilson

RIPE NCC Staff: Ulka Athale, Hafsa Bou-eddine, Hisham Ibrahim, Marita Phelan

Scribe: Antony Gollan

1. Introducing new RIPE WG chairs

Outgoing chairs were thanked: Julf Helsingius, (Cooperation WG), Leo Vegoda (Address Policy WG), Peter Steinhäuser from IoT WG; Moritz Müller from DNS WG; and Nina Bargisen from MAT WG. Mirjam noted that both Julf and Nina were stepping down after ten years as co-chairs of their respective WGs.

Incoming and continuing chairs were welcomed: Marc van der Wal (DNS WG), Leslie Nobile (Address Policy WG). David Tatlisu (Database WG) continuing with another term, and Romana Marfievici, the new IoT WG chair who was confirmed later that day.

2. Working Group Liaisons

Mirjam noted that the RIPE NCC had now appointed staff members as liaisons for each Working Group and encouraged chairs to make use of them.

It was suggested that liaisons could also help to improve the relevance of RIPE NCC presentations in working group sessions. Not everything could be pushed into the RIPE NCC Services WG. The subject matter experts were in those WGs that dealt with specific topics such as Routing, Database, and IPv6. RIPE was responsible as a community for providing feedback to the RIPE NCC about its services. On the other hand, the RIPE NCC was also looking at this internally, trying to find better ways to engage with the working groups so that they could get the feedback they needed. The liaisons could play an important role here. It was noted there was a balance between providing interesting talks and the RIPE NCC’s obligation to report back to the community on its activities and seek input on next steps.

3. Feedback about RIPE 92

There was a discussion about the longstanding expectation that people should state their affiliations when speaking at the mic at RIPE Meetings.

This was generally seen as useful because it helped attendees understand a speaker’s perspective. However, this could easily become complicated; some participants consulted for multiple organisations, were self-employed, or might not be allowed to name the organisation they represented. Affiliation could also change depending on the context. There was general support for explaining the reason behind this before any stronger expectation was introduced.

Various points were raised about the venue and meeting logistics. Feedback included that the venue layout was unusual but workable, the air quality was poor in some rooms, mobile phone reception had been an issue for some participants, and some of the food options could be difficult for people with dietary restrictions. It was suggested that menus could be published on the website ahead of the meeting so that participants could plan their week accordingly. There was also feedback that the QR-code-based menus at the meeting were not very usable.

A situation involving a remote speaker being cut off was discussed. It was recommended that remote speakers always use headphones so they didn’t have to mute their sound to prevent audio feedback while speaking. There could also be clearer instructions for remote speakers, and a visible timer in Meetecho or a standard time allocation for questions might help.

There was a repeated request to have the stenography visible to speakers from the stage and for 09:00 morning slots to be rotated more evenly across Working Groups. Remote participants had also reported that varying microphone and speaker volumes made it hard to follow sessions without constantly adjusting their volume.

The adjustable lectern was appreciated, and the meeting team was thanked for moving the places reserved for session chairs into speakers’ eyelines.

There was a discussion about social events and noise levels. Some felt the socials started too late and that the format placed too much emphasis on music and dancing when many participants preferred quieter conversation. Others noted that having the socials later in the evening made it easier for people to have dinner beforehand, and also that different people wanted different kinds of social events. Having quieter breakout rooms at the Tuesday social was appreciated, though some participants felt that the acoustics at the venue still made conversation difficult. The RIPE NCC’s meeting team noted they had tried to accommodate different preferences across the week and that prior feedback on noise levels had been taken into account. It was suggested that the feedback form for the RIPE Meeting could include questions about social preferences (e.g. "I like to dance" vs. "I prefer to chat and like it quieter"). This could provide some data for the ongoing discussion.

4. Feedback about the submission system

There was further feedback about the use of Pretalx, which was the system presenters used to upload their talks. It was noted that expectations were not always clear to speakers. In one case, a talk had a 30-minute duration attached, but this did not match what the speakers were expecting. It was explained that some fields had defaults and that chairs should add different expectations in the relevant fields if needed. It was suggested that defaults might be removed or reduced to avoid confusion.

It was also noted that it was not immediately clear to speakers where to upload slides, and that some speakers were submitting talks without slides. The RIPE NCC had raised this with Pretalx and had also sent an email to chairs with screenshots explaining the process. Chairs were reminded that speakers needed to read the guidance emails.

Other issues included an incorrect date for a session creating issues with the system and some confusion around scheduling. It was noted that timekeeping had improved significantly over the recent meetings.

5. Feedback from the PC Liaison

There was nothing specific to report from the Programme Committee. Chairs were asked whether they had feedback for the PC. The feedback was positive, and it was noted that the plenary had been well attended.

6. AOB

It was noted that one WG had opened its session by explaining the purpose of the Working Group. This was seen as useful and potentially worth repeating elsewhere.

It was also noted that describing the dinner dress code as “smart casual” might have put some participants off attending and this could be clarified in future.