[address-policy-wg] 2023-04 Who do I speak for?

Hi Mirjam

Thanks for the clarifications. On points 1 and 2 I bow to your better
judgements.

For point 3 I see your view. But I think I get singled out for unfair
criticism here. During my reappointment as co-chair of the DB-WG some
people heavily criticised me for taking part in discussions on mailing
lists whilst being a co-chair. I believe that was personal and not
objective criticism. It was suggested that 'I' am doing something no
other chair has ever done and it is wrong. They have short memories.
The previous chairs to the current set for the DB-WG were often
heavily involved in discussion on the database and other mailing
lists. The chairs before them (including the original chair) were also
often involved in discussions on multiple lists. So I haven't started
a new trend. The (co) chairs of the DB-WG (and perhaps other WGs) have
been involved in discussions on various mailing lists since the lists
started in 1992.

Another interesting observation is that before the current chairs of
the DB-WG, ALL previous chairs only ever signed any email with their
first name. None of them ever signed anything 'as' a co-chair. Looking
at other mailing lists, including this AP-WG, most chairs
intermittently sign emails (at least on their own list) with or
without the chair title suffix. Again this goes back to the beginning
of time. So there doesn't seem to be any convention on how chairs sign
emails. Maybe I'll just sign with my name (as many others do), then I
can't be criticised for wearing the wrong hat.

cheers
denis

On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 at 16:44, Mirjam Kuehne <mir at zu-hause.nl> wrote:
>
> Hi Denis,
>
> Thank you for explaining how you see your role.
>
> I would like to clarify a few things you mentioned in your mail. I hope
> this will be useful especially for RIPE community members who might not
> have the long history in the community that some of us have.
>
> 1. Regarding the role of the RIPE Community:
>
> The fact that the RIPE community is not a legal entity and that it is
> open to anyone who wants to participate, does not mean it is "undefined".
>
>  From the beginning, the RIPE community has agreed to document its
> decisions and processes as RIPE documents that are publicly accessible.
> In the RIPE Terms of Reference (ripe-001) [1] the mission and scope of
> RIPE is defined. We have a clearly defined policy development process
> and clearly defined governance processes that the community agrees to
> follow.
>
> Decisions are made by consensus and RIPE documents go through a defined
> community review.
>
> 2. Regarding the relation between RIPE and the RIPE NCC:
>
> The RIPE NCC clearly states its role as the secretariat of RIPE in its
> mission, activity plan and budget. These are formal documents the RIPE
> NCC members vote on.
>
> Also, there is a long track record of the RIPE NCC following guidance
> from the RIPE community.
>
> 3. Regarding the role of a chair:
>
> It is the responsibility of a chair to listen and to guide discussions,
> to summarise and to actively build consensus.
>
> Those of us who serve in a special function or have a leadership role
> are aware of the fact that people tend to see us as being in that role.
> Therefore we need to take extra care if and when we decide to
> participate in a discussion as an individual.
>
> Kind regards,
> Mirjam
> (RIPE Chair)
>
>
> [1] RIPE Terms of Reference
> https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-001
>
>
>