Colleagues A question has been put to me privately asking if I am speaking for the DB-WG because I sign my mails as 'co-chair DB-WG'. Now asking a question like this to an analyst means you are going to get a detailed answer.
Everything about RIPE (not RIPE NCC) is underpinned by the RIPE community. This is a very loosely defined community. It is basically anyone in the world who has an opinion on how the Internet is operated and administered in the RIPE region. It is not tied to any specific group of people and I don't think it carries any legal weight, even on any consensual decisions it makes. I'm not sure if the relationship between RIPE and the RIPE NCC is even written into the RIPE NCC's corporate documents requiring the RIPE NCC to take instructions from a RIPE community consensus, or just from its own membership and/or executive board. So the whole concept of the RIPE community and everything it does is voluntary and pretty much undefined. So what is a Working Group vs a RIPE Working Group? A WG can be established to be a specific, defined set of people, assigned a specific task to investigate or work on. Such a WG can have an opinion, viewpoint or a conclusive result. The chairs of such a WG can express opinions, views or conclusions for or on behalf of the WG. Similar to what we call a Task Force. A RIPE WG is basically a public mailing list that anyone in the world can read and follow, but only a random subset of the community subscribers to the list will comment on for any specific issue. The WG, or mailing list, can't have a view or opinion. Only the community members subscribed to the list, who choose to comment, have views and opinions, which may be personal or corporate. So a co-chair cannot speak 'for' a WG. At best they can express a summary of the views held by the community members who choose to comment on any specific issue. Another difference is that a RIPE WG, unlike a TF, is not limited to one issue. It can have any number of diverse issues under discussion at any moment. The only consideration is that each issue vaguely fits the title of the WG. Following a discussion the chairs can determine if there is a consensus from the views expressed by those transient, community members who commented. The chairs and anyone else can then refer to that consensus. But this is a consensus of the views of the community members, not of the WG. The WG itself, being so loosely defined, cannot have a view. Even though it says in ripe-692 RIPE Working Group Chair Job Description and Procedures, "When participating in RIPE discussions, WG Chairs and co-chairs should endeavour to make it clear whether they speak on behalf of themselves, the organisations they work for, or the WG for which they are co-chair." I think this is a generalised condition. With the structure of RIPE WGs there is no meaning to speaking 'for' a WG. A RIPE WG is just a collection of views expressed by individual, transient RIPE community members which may or may not reach a consensus. Incidentally I don't recall ever seeing a WG chair state that a view is that of their business. I would be surprised if no chair has ever expressed a view that is in the best interests of their business. Rather than this constant dance with changing hats, I think it would make more sense to assume any comment or view expressed by anyone, including a co-chair, is a personal view unless they explicitly say it is the view of their business or a collective or consensual view from a WG. The web page https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg sums it up quite well, "The responsibility of the chairs is to moderate discussions and declare whether consensus is reached on a policy proposal...Most of the working group’s activity is done via the mailing list" As there has been no policy proposal or NWI on the DB-WG mailing list on these issues there is no consensus and therefore nothing I could refer to in a way of speaking 'for' the DB-WG. Even on this page https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/wg-chairs it says, "The chairs are responsible for moderating discussions on the mailing lists, chairing Working Group sessions and for declaring whether consensus is reached on a policy proposal." There is no concept of speaking 'for' the WG mentioned. Of course I could start a parallel discussion on the DB-WG mailing list about the content of the RIPE Database and it's future. But the small subset of the RIPE community who comment on the DB-WG mailing list is pretty much the same as the small subset of the RIPE community who comment on the AP-WG mailing list. It is extremely hard to get many people to comment on any discussion on any mailing list these days. To ask the same people to express the same views in two different places would be an impossible task. As the two mailing lists do have such an overlap of contributors I see this discussion as a RIPE Database discussion as much as an address policy discussion, even though it is on the AP-WG list. It is generally discouraged to cross post on multiple mailing lists. Obviously the co-chairs of the DB-WG cannot declare a consensus on any discussion on this mailing list. But if it looked like the discussion was leading to something tangible for the RIPE Database we could summarise it on the DB-WG mailing list and ask for final comments and declare a consensus there. As it is more or less the same group of people commenting on the two lists, you know you haven't had this discussion on the other list so there is no consensus I could be referring to. So why do I sign as co-chair of the DB-WG on posts on this mailing list? As I have outlined above, I cannot speak 'for' the DB-WG as that has no meaning. But I think it is important to show that this discussion, to a large extent about the RIPE Database, is being followed (some may say driven) by a co-chair of the DB-WG. Then if anything of more concern to the DB-WG than the AP-WG is discussed or suggested, but perhaps not concluded, you know it will be followed up on the DB-WG mailing list. I also do it to indicate to anyone who may not know me, that I am a person who does have some detailed knowledge of the RIPE Database. I am retired so I don't have any job title or corporate name to reference. IF this is a concern to anyone then I could change my signature on future emails to: denis former RIPE NCC Business & Technical Analyst, Designer, Developer, Administrator for the RIPE Database In fact this may be more meaningful. Many people who have been chairs of the DB-WG over the years have only had operator experience of using the RIPE Database. I literally know it inside out, from almost every possible angle for 20+ years. I was never 'just an engineer'. I was even half the legal team for the database with Jochem, before the NCC employed legal professionals. The only experience I don't have is using it as an operator. But that is something most of the rest of you have. cheers denis former RIPE NCC Business & Technical Analyst, Designer, Developer, Administrator for the RIPE Database -- To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg
