[members-discuss] Feedback on Mailing List/Board Election Issues

On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 11:37:21AM +0200, Christian Kaufmann wrote:
>The board would like to know your thoughts:
>
>- Should the same approach be used next time (moderation + unmoderated archive for transparency)?

Yes, I think this is the best compromise in this situation, as it
keeps the noise off the list and yet allows everyone willing to
do so to see what is being censored and to make up their own mind
as to whether it was appropriate or not. 

>- Does the membership feel confident with moderation being overseen by the Executive Board and RIPE NCC staff, or would you prefer an alternate arrangement

This is fine, as long as the Board accepts accountability for
those decisions. Although I'd suggest NCC staff act only in an
advisory capacity there, they can't be held accountable for
conflicts of interest with their *employer*.

>- Is there value in a task force of members to examine these issues?

No. Most members aren't even capable of unsubscribing from a ML
that annoys them, instead of complaining loudly and incoherently; I cannot think of any value they could add to this process.

>3. ABILITY TO STAND AS A CANDIDATE IN BOARD ELECTIONS
>
>As mentioned above, the board is giving special attention to this issue. We plan to discuss this in a separate email in the near future.

I'm going long on popcorn...

rgds,
Sascha Luck

PS: I really wonder how many attempts to unsubscribe me this is
going to generate...