Re: RIPE restructuring
- Date: Tue, 10 May 1994 14:42:54 +0100
Hi Rob and Milan,
I thought I'd like to share my first reaction with you.
=QUESTIONS AND [my] ANSWERS ON RIPE FUTURE
=to initiate the discussion
=Shall we formalize RIPE membership and voting procedures ?
=> I wouldn't touch this one yet. Agreement in the plenary is reached
I have a strong feeling against voting. You spend more time to discuss
(weighted) voting (only those who pay? relative to their contribution?
one man one vote? no voting for any reasons?...) than on the technical
If we *desperately* need voting on two equivalent technical
alternatives, then maybe according to: single majority, one man one
=Shall we formalize the management of RIPE ?
=> I suggest that the chairman [+ vicechairmen if any] and the chairs
=> of the WG's form the RIPE Council which would have the obligation of :
=> - preparing the contents and the schedule of the RIPE meetings
=> (work closely with the RIPE NCC)
=> - reviewing the work of RIPE NCC
=> - reviewing the docs if we decide so
=> - defining the RIPE program (whatever it is)
=> - deciding (if it is needed) in specified areas
=> even between the meetings (e.g. RIPE liaisons,
=> - identify problem areas in European Internet
=> coordination and propose solutions
=Level of commitment to RIPE work ? Official support ?
=> Every member of the Council should obtain a written commitment
=> of his employer to commit a certain amount of his time to the
=> work for RIPE (1-2 days/week) and cover travel costs for 3-4 meetings/year.
=> This commitment should be limited in time (min. one year, max two).
That's an idea, but a risk as well...
=How are WG's created and disbandled ?
=> Each WG must have a short and concrete charter, with clearly specified
=> tasks. The group will only be created if consensus is reached on the
=> charter, the importance of the topic is evaluated as high, consensus
=> is reached on the chairman and there exists enough commitment to the
=> work of the WG in the RIPE community. The WG is then entitled to get
=> support from the NCC and the chairman becomes automatically member of
=> the council.
I think we need some more thinking about terms like "areas" or maybe
let's call them "on-going infastructure groups" vs. short-lived and
well-defined WGs or "task=forces".
Examples for on-going things could be registries, database, connectivity
coordination, user support and some others; the "mapping" or "CDS" or
some such could be tackled by (short-lived) TFs.
=How is WG activity evaluated ?
=> Every RIPE meeting the attendees fill a RIPE activity evaluation sheet.
=> Here they will regularly evaluate the importance and the performance
=> of the WG and it's chair. This will serve as a guidance to the WG
=> chairs and the council, which may take appropriate measures. Each
=> WG will have a mandate limited in time and the charter of the WG
=> will have to be reevaluated every 4-5 meetings (?). Other criteria may
=> be applied to the WG activity as well - WG session attendance, activity
=> on the mailing list, number of documents and other outputs from the
=> WG. Evaluation sheets may also be accepted from the ripe-list
=> members electronically.
While I appreciate any ideas of getting feed-back on the quality of
activities, I think the outline given above is quite a bit too
formalized. Mt feeling is that attendees should concentrate on
*contributing* instead of evaluating...
=How are WG chairs appointed and changed ?
=> Every WG chair gets a 4-5 meetings mandate after which he has to
=> be reconfirmed by the community. This can be either joined to the WG
=> charter update/reconfirmation or separated. The council can take
=> internal measures to change the WG chair during the mandate (TBD).
Let's have elections every 1.5 .. 2 years?!
Very simple stuff,
2/3/5 attendees propose a candidate,
candidate has to accept nomination,
=Responsabilities of the WG chairs ?
=> - animate the work of the WG (also between the meetings)
=> - prepare the agenda of WG meetings and cooperate
=> on general agenda of the RIPE meeting
=> - report about the meeting to the assembly
=> - stimulate large international cooperation in the
=> field of activity of the WG
=> - help newcommers to get basic orientation in the
=> field of activity
how, when and where?
=> - stick to the charter of the WG or initiate changes
=> according to new situation
=> - make the time of life of the WG as short as possible (?)
maybe we want a TF-leader who achieves maximum technical progress in a
short period of time...
=> - identify problems in the field of activity and
=> define and solve new tasks aiming at solving these
=> - keep track and stimulate timely closing of action points
=> accepted at meetings
=How are temporary activities handled ?
=> Either as actions on RIPE community members or if needed as WG's
=> which will be dissolved once the work is done.
=Formalization of the decision process ?
=> Consensus in the plenaries and simple majority of votes in the
=How is the chair and vice-chairs appointed ?
=> Consensus among the attendees of the meeting. They get a 6-7 meetings
=> mandate which can be reconfirmed by the assembly.
agreed, voting if there is more than one candidate for a specific
=What are their duties and rights ?
=> - attend RIPE meetings
=> - contribute actively to the work of RIPE between meetings
=> - promote RIPE and represent RIPE to the external world
=> - animate activities in the WG's
=> - stimulate cooperation between other bodies active in the same area
=> - strive to conciliate problems which may arise between service
=> providers in the European Internet and which affect the global
=> quality of Internet service
=> - review work of the WG and WG chairs and propose
=> solutions of identified problems to the council and the assembly
=> Every chair/vicechair should obtain a written commitment of his
=> employer to support his activity and allow him to dedicate 1-2days/week
=> to RIPE affairs and to support travel cost for 5 meetings/year.
=Open and close meetings ?
=Introductory sessions - tutorial programme ?
=> Every RIPE meeting session should be tagged as open or restricted.
=> The difference not being in not allowing other than invited people
=> to come but to work in accordance to certain predefined rules, which
=> would as general principle allow anyone to actively participate
=> or give the WG chair the right to stop questions and discussions
=> which are either out the of the scope of the session or would
=> decrease the technical level of the discussion. (shortly said
=> the non initiated can only silently sit and listen :-).
the only group that should have "closed meetings" for the time being is
But maybe we should re-think this according to the terms of "area" vs.
"task-force". It could make sense to limit the number of people in a
=> At each RIPE meeting half a day will be dedicated to one or
=> more tutorial sessions on hot topics in the Internet. It is
=> the responsability of the council to prepare such tutorials
=> and insure their technical quality. Only restricted meetings
=> can take place parallely to tutorials.
I would propose to have the first *and* the last half days reserved for
tutorials. Nevertheless the council is probably not in a position to
"prepare such tutorials" but simply to provide the framework and
support for these training sessions. It could also be worth the effort
to think about financially supporting a trainer and top collect a
nonmianl fee from the participants. There are examples available that
this model can work quite well!
=> some examples of tutorial topics: IPxg, mbone, introduction to
=> RIPE registration and RIPE DB procedures, making DNS work well,
=> IETF activities reports ...
=Plenary meetings only or separate WG meetings ?
=> To make work of the working groups progress more rapidly, the WG
=> chairs can convene a meeting off the usual RIPE meetings but have
=> to report to the plenary soon after the meeting.
The dates for these (tentative) meetings should be fixed at the full
RIPE meetings. These meetings should be convened in Amsterdam and be
back-to-back (if more than one is scheduled).
=RIPE working plan ?
=Periodical revisions of the RIPE working plan ?
=> Besides the RIPE terms of reference the chair/vicechairs should
=> regularly prepare and update a RIPE working plan (say for next
=> 3-4 meetings) containing general directions of RIPE and the most
=> important activities in the near future. This plan should be presented
=> and consented to by the plenary and should be accepted by the council
=> as an official document.
I fail to see what we want to achieve be formalizing it (accepting it
by the council after consensus in the plenary)...
=Starting from this meeting the RIPE attendees should fill an evaluation
=sheet (signature on it is not obligatory). This should serve the council
=as a guidance to future modifications of the RIPE activities and working
I would prefer to ask the attendees to provide their names on the
questionnaire, but also to allow them to be sent in anonymouosly as well.
I'm a bit worried by anonymous procedures to introduce and even support
the "consumer attitude"...
=Evaluation of RIPE activity by RIPE attendees
=RIPE meeting evaluation sheets
= - WG and TF evaluation (output, perenity, importance of the topic)
= - WG chair evaluation
= - RIPE direction evaluation
= - new activities prioritization
= - WG participants activity evaluation (vs. one man shows)
=Other evaluation criteria
= - attendance of WG meetins
= - activity on the mailing list
= - number of action items and fullfillment ratio
= - chairman activity between meetings
=Prague University of Economics e-mail : Milan.Sterba@localhost
=Computing Center tel : +42 2 24 21 79 00
=nam. W. Churchilla 4 home: +42 2 823 78 59
=130 67 Praha 3 fax : +42 2 24 22 42 66
Wilfried Woeber : e-mail: Wilfried.Woeber@localhost
Computer Center - ACOnet :
Vienna University : Tel: +43 1 4065822 355
Universitaetsstrasse 7 : Fax: +43 1 4065822 170
A-1010 Vienna, Austria, Europe : NIC: WW144