[ripe-list] RIPE Accountability Task Force: Updated Draft Scope and Presentation at RIPE 74

On 08/05/2017 11:02, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
>
> ----
> Proposal 1
>
> Ideally a task force charter states a rather narrowly defined task and
> also lists expected results, such as specific documents.  In order to
> avoid spending more time and energy arguing over this I suggest, as a
> compromise, to add the following language:
>
> "The task force will publish and maintain a work plan.
> For each document under development the work plan will show when drafts
> will be published and how and when community consensus will be achieved
> on the final result."
>
> This allows the task force to organise its work and at the same time it
> helps to conduct the work transparently and with track-able goals.
I'm in full agreement with this proposal. If this is a Task Force (and I 
believe it should be) then it must have a well defined goal.
> ----
> Proposal 2
>
> Ideally a task force charter contains when and how the task force will
> finish.  In order to avoid spending more time and energy arguing over
> this I suggest, by way of compromise, to add the following sentence:
>
> "This charter will be reviewed by the community
> no later than the second RIPE meeting in 2018."
>
> This avoids setting up an endless task force and provides the
> opportunity to modify or add tasks based on the work already completed.
Again... agreed. Task forces have well defined self destruct dates.
>
> ----
> Proposal 3
>
> In order to clarify that there is definitely no intent to propose new
> procedures and formalisms right away, I propose to add the following
> sentence after "Publish recommendations for the RIPE community."
>
> "The task force will not propose or recommend
> specific new procedures or formalisms."
>
> This makes the charter explicitly reflect the intention of the task
> force as stated by Filiz earlier in this discussion.
> Such tasks very well be added later once we have considered all
> alternatives and have established community consensus to develop
> specific procedures or formalisms.
>
>
I have no problems with this proposal, although I feel that the TF has 
already addressed this issue. There can be no harm in having it 
explicitly stated in the charter.

Nigel