Dear Gordon and others, As a 'lurker' on the list and a pretty regular RIPE participant, I can only state that I think this mailinglist is very important. And yes, that it is a wanted, and necessary, contribution to the larger conversations going on at RIPE. That being said, I can imagine your frustration about the lack of conversation, Gordon. But that seems in part because there are not sufficient working group co-chairs to move the ball forward in terms of ensuring a steady flow of mailinglist conversations and contributions.
This is not to say that Meredith is not doing an excellent job. She is. But she is also doing it alone. And if we want the list to become more active we need to ensure that there are enough people to facilitate that. I also noticed during the latest RIPE meeting that there was a lot of pressure to select co-chairs, yet when the conversation was started a lot of (negative) energy was focused on our current chair's choice of words with regards to the procedures for doing so. I think highlighting this is important for several reasons: it shows that the group is very focused on process, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but when such a process-heavy approach actually undermines the process of selectinging the co-chairs, in my mind there is a (process) problem. We could have easily spent that time we nit-picked Meredith choice of words, nit-picking the candidates merits. Related to this, as a relative newbie on this list, the rather hostile manner in which the conversation at RIPE in Copenhagen took place was off-putting. And now before my inbox gets filled up with people complaining about 'generation-Y's inability to deal with the real world' or 'in your face feedback', let me make three things clear: 1. I am Dutch, we pretty much invented the in-your-face-style of conversation. 2. I am on IETF mailinglist, where they pretty much invented 1. but then for mailinglists 3. Just because our communities pride themselves on their 'saying-it-like-it-is' culture does not make it efficient (or right) It should not come as a surprise that lurkers on the list stay silent sometimes when they notice that the on going conversations are tense, a little in-crowdy, and that their questions or points are most likely dismissed with a 'go read the archives'. I am not saying that this is the case for this mailinglist or WG, but I think it might be something to consider. I hope that in the upcoming weeks we can make a definitive decision about the new co-chairs. Don't worry, I won't suggest an election (or that I don't want to be in the way of your coffee break) because we all know that apparently offering such suggestions can get some people pretty agitated, but rather that we move this process forward so we can get back to discussing the content, with support of the new co-chair(s). Best, Corinne On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 11:00 AM, <cooperation-wg-requ...@ripe.net> wrote: > Send cooperation-wg mailing list submissions to > cooperation-wg@ripe.net > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/cooperation-wg > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > cooperation-wg-requ...@ripe.net > > You can reach the person managing the list at > cooperation-wg-ow...@ripe.net > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of cooperation-wg digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. The Working Group (Gordon Lennox) > 2. Re: The Working Group (Johan Helsingius) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 11:19:16 +0200 > From: Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox...@gmail.com> > To: Cooperation WG <cooperation-wg@ripe.net> > Subject: [cooperation-wg] The Working Group > Message-ID: <0ea874bd-f5e3-426f-b293-ae3795b7c...@gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > Jim asked some questions about a week ago and while we are waiting for a > reply I feel I should ask one more. > > Do people actually want this Working Group? > > I see we get good attendance at the sessions during RIPE meetings. But > traditionally WGs have also been very much about the mailing lists. A WG > cannot just be about private conversations. > > The amount and style of contributions to this list, the lack of > conversations about content, makes me feel that while people may be > interested they are not actually interested enough to say anything. OK I > have been on lists long enough to know that there are always many > ?lurkers?. Well we all know that. But there has to be some activity to make > even that worthwhile. But I also note that while we had four candidates for > co-chair they too seem remarkably silent. That is an indication of how they > see the role of co-chair? I think it can be important for WGs to know what > chairs and co-chairs think. > > I see this area as important. Well I would! And I am not giving up right > now. But what to others think? > > Gordon > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 11:24:41 +0200 > From: Johan Helsingius <j...@julf.com> > To: cooperation-wg@ripe.net > Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] The Working Group > Message-ID: <576664d9.9070...@julf.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > Gordon, > > > The amount and style of contributions to this list, the > > lack of conversations about content, makes me feel that > > while people may be interested they are not actually > > interested enough to say anything. > > As I haven't been on this list too long, I didn't want to > start spamming the list with postings about stuff going > on that I think we should be aware of (and possibly address), > and instead have been lurking to get a "feel" for the > spirit of the list - but I agree with you, it seems rather > thin on the ground with regards to relevant discussion. > > Julf > > > > > End of cooperation-wg Digest, Vol 53, Issue 11 > ********************************************** > -- Corinne J.N. Cath
