[members-discuss] External thoughts on the Executive Board Election TF

On Sat, Nov 7, 2020 at 12:04 PM Marcus Stoegbauer <lysis at lys.is> wrote:

> [ trimmed down excessive CC list ]
>
> My definition of self appointed doesn’t seem to line up with yours.
> The task force was appointed by the Executive Board and made up from
> members of the community. Can you please elaborate where the “self
> appointed” claim is coming from?
>

I should have probably made this clearer, I meant to suggest that this
group chose themselves to make the recommendations without any external
scrutiny of the NCC or it's members. People may not want to commit
themselves to an entire task force, but this should not stop them from
being able to have their say.

>
> I also would like to strongly oppose the notion that such mailing lists
> need to be public. The mailing list was a communication tool to form
> thoughts and guide discussion towards the goal of the task force. Free
> discussions within a task force IMO can only happen when the task force
> can openly voice their opinions without thinking about how they are
> perceived by a wider public audience. The discussions might as well
> exclusively happen in video calls, and I sure hope you wouldn’t
> request access of the public to those calls.


> In summary: task forces are formed to work out a goal, for which they
> require privacy. Minutes of the discussions and regular updates (if
> it’s a longer running process) can be sensible to keep the public
> informed, but with this task force the final report contained plenty of
> information. Additionally, the final report was presented to the members
> and there was a vote on the relevant passages, so I fail to see how
> damages could be done by this proceeding.
>

My ultimate aim would be for the abolition of all closed off groups/TFs/WGs
within RIPE/the NCC. There was no real time for the community to give their
views until after the fact, and after the work was done. If the ML was made
public, there would at least have been a chance for the community to see
the chain of thought that went into the decisions that were made and maybe
would have meant there could have been more constructive discussion. Surely
if it's a suggestion to the board which is going to affect the entirety of
the NCC, there should be some transparency of how the suggestion was made
before the vote (this may have been done, but was not publicised well)?

I understand some of the issues around this resolve back to moderation and
keeping the discussion on topic. RIPE has a forum, could the WGs and TFs be
moved there to ensure that the discussions can be locked open, but still
managed in a way that keeps them on track? Potentially have 2 threads for
each TF, one for the "members" to discuss and actually further the TF, but
also a mandate to check another thread which is running for everyone else
to dip in and out of to make their thoughts? This would ensure the rest of
the Community actually have a live say in things, but won't get in the way
of the TF doing it's job.

The NCC made a lot of noise at RIPE81 about trying to attract new members
and new "blood" into the NCC and community. Locked doors and locked away
decisions and suggestion making won't help with this - but this is just an
opinion.

Thanks

Harry

>
>     Marcus
>
> On 7 Nov 2020, at 12:23, Harry Cross wrote:
>
> > I don't agree unfortunately, and I don't think self appointed groups
> > within
> > the NCC should be allowed to lock themselves away to make decisions
> > about
> > this sort of thing without some form of scrutiny. The mailing list
> > doesn't
> > have to be open to all to reply too, but at least to give a live
> > overview
> > of what is going on.
> >
> > At the moment it looks like a self appointed group was allowed to make
> > recommendations, without any sort of chain of thought being made
> > public until after it had happened and the damage has been done. RIPE
> > Board, I would like to suggest that a rule is instigated in future to
> > prohibit any mailing list being made private (bar anything for the
> > members only), so that proper scrutiny of the work of the NCC and it's
> > TFs
> > can be undertaken.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Harry
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Nov 7, 2020 at 9:53 AM Cynthia Revström <me at cynthia.re>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> (directed to EB)
> >> The archives appear to be gone, this needs to be fixed.
> >>
> >> (directed to Harry)
> >> The doodles were just scheduling times when the TF members were
> >> available
> >> for calls.
> >>
> >>> Surely if the membership had requested for this to happen, it makes
> >> sense to allow them to be involved in the discussion.
> >>
> >> This is not quite true, it was the Executive Board who called for the
> >> Task
> >> Force to be created to write a report of suggested changes that the
> >> EB
> >> could present to the members for them to vote on.
> >>
> >>> Some people may not want to commit to a full task force membership,
> >>> but
> >> still give their view.
> >>
> >> Sadly I don't think this would have worked at all if it was a public
> >> mailing list. We needed a group of people who were invested into the
> >> issue
> >> and not have a bunch of comments from all over the place.
> >> The diversity-tf is/was(?) an open mailing list, that pretty much
> >> failed
> >> in my opinion due to it, and I think that this TF would have had the
> >> same
> >> outcome if it was open.
> >>
> >> -Cynthia
> >>
> >> On Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 18:02 Harry Cross <me at harrycross.me> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi all,
> >>> I've just had a cursory glance through the report and the mailing
> >>> list
> >>> minutes.
> >>>
> >>> I'd like to ask why the mailing list was not open to all please, I
> >>> saw
> >>> the minutes mentioned this but there was no explanation of why?
> >>> Surely if
> >>> the membership had requested for this to happen, it makes sense to
> >>> allow
> >>> them to be involved in the discussion. Some people may not want to
> >>> commit
> >>> to a full task force membership, but still give their view.
> >>>
> >>> I also tried to get to the Doodles and they don't work. Are they
> >>> public
> >>> at all please?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks
> >>>
> >>> Harry
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>> members-discuss mailing list
> >>> members-discuss at ripe.net
> >>> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss
> >>> Unsubscribe:
> >>> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/me%40cynthia.re
> >>>
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > members-discuss mailing list
> > members-discuss at ripe.net
> > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss
> > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/lysis%40lys.is
>
> _______________________________________________
> members-discuss mailing list
> members-discuss at ripe.net
> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss
> Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/me%40harrycross.me
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20201107/94995583/attachment-0001.html>