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

Hi Peter

On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 at 21:36, Peter Hessler <phessler at theapt.org> wrote:
>
> Denis,
>
> Yes, you are correct that that signing your emails saying you are
> co-chair of DB tells the reader that you are speaking on behalf of the
> working group.  That may or may not be your intention, but that is how
> people are reading it.  No longer signing your emails "co-chair" would
> be a dramatic improvement, for sure.  You could also sign them as "not
> speaking as co-chair" to be explicit.
>
> A lot of the critisim against you has been based on the understanding
> that you are acting as a dictator and pushing your agenda.  You might
> not agree, but that is how I view your behaviour as co-chair.
>

One problem with that view...you cannot be a dictator if any agreement
to do something needs a consensus of views. This issue has come up a
number of times. The only agenda I have is to improve the RIPE
Database as a product and service, by consensus, and to maintain the
value of a public registry for IP addresses, which is why we are
talking on this list at the moment.

I would accept that I sometimes behave in a pushy manner, but not
dictatorial. And as we have discussed many times, for many issues
involving the RIPE Database, if 'I' don't push conversations no one
will say anything. The evidence is in the archive. Discussion on many
issues won't even start unless I push it onto everyone's agenda.
Conversations die quickly if I don't keep pushing it. There are open
issues we have been trying to reach a consensus on for 7 years but we
average about 1 comment every 6 months.

We simply cannot get many people to talk about many of the RIPE
Database issues. This is why I made the presentation at the last RIPE
Meeting about how we manage the RIPE Database. What we are doing right
now is simply not working. We cannot continue trying to manage it in
this way. As Leo mentioned some months ago, the number of people
contributing to mailing list discussions is extremely low.

I also raised the issue of the RIPE Database technology and data model
in the recent policy discussion on this list. That is one of those
'bury your head in the sand and pretend I never said it' topics. You
can call me dictatorial or pushy or say it is 'my' agenda if you like.
But I am retired. If the RIPE Database falls over in a heap and dies,
I don't lose any money. Some of you might. The technology is 25 years
old. The data model is 25-30 years old. It is not fit for purpose any
more. Just look at Ed's impact analysis on assigning a whole
allocation (one of those 7 year old open issues). We can't keep
hacking it like this. In Iceland Daniel said it is "time to stop
tinkering around the edges". That is all we have done ever since. If
we implement this feature we will break it for sure. Am I the only
person who can see this event on the horizon? Isn't it my duty as a
co-chair of the DB-WG to raise awareness of impending doom of this
dinosaur? If I was a dictator the RIPE NCC would already be
re-developing chunks of the database. Unfortunately I can't even get
anyone to talk about it. The RIPE Database is one of the central
pillars of the registry. One of the core functions of the RIPE NCC as
an RIR, which the members pay for. Yet no matter how many cracks I
point out to you, everyone looks the other way.

In the end you can talk all you like about my style (again). But is
this just a deflection tactic because you don't want to talk about the
issues I raise? Clearly there are many different views about the
registry. And I haven't even started yet on the recent report on the
latest RIPE NCC survey. That has implications for both address policy
and the database...but I am sure many of you have already read it and
noted those implications.

cheers
denis


> -peter
>
>
> On 2023 Oct 16 (Mon) at 21:09:47 +0200 (+0200), denis walker wrote:
> :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