> On 12 Dec 2018, at 17:02, William Sylvester <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Jim, all,
>
> Just re-sending my earlier comments, which will hopefully be clearer to read.
Thanks for that.
>> First, the biggie. The report talks about how RIPE is accountable and who
>> it's accountable to, it does not explain what RIPE is accountable *for*. I
>> wonder if these considerations also need to be broken down and documented
>> for various components of RIPE -- Chair, WG Chairs, WG Chairs Collective,
>> Working Groups, Task Forces(!?), etc. The tables starting on p10 don't do
>> that IMO. They describe the functional roles of these entities, not what
>> they are accountable for or to who
> When we sought feedback from the community, we were told that it was better
> to avoid defining the scope of the RIPE community. This was briefly covered
> in the report when we said this:
>
> "Although RIPE’s scope has never been officially discussed and agreed upon,
> and may change as circumstances change, there is a general understanding that
> there are limits to the issues and problems it can address. RIPE is not an
> unlimited body just because a problem exists does not mean it is RIPE’s
> problem to solve." (Page 6).
This answers a different point (and one that seems to be out of scope) from the
issue I raised. Sorry.
I (naively?) assumed the TF would look at the various elements of RIPE -- as
listed above -- and assess what they were accountable for and to whom. For
bonus points the TF would determine if the accountability mechanisms for them
were appropriate and satisfactory. And perhaps suggested improvements if the TF
determined these were needed. IMO all of that's orthogonal to your answer about
defining the scope of the RIPE community.
I simply don't understand how "defining the scope of the RIPE community" fits
with the above. Could you please explain?
The scope of the TF could hardly have been clearer:
The RIPE Accountability Task Force agreed to:
• Review existing RIPE community structures, documentation and processes to
ensure they are accountable and in alignment with RIPE values
• Document existing RIPE community structures or processes where needed
• Identify potential gaps where RIPE accountability could be improved or
strengthened
• Publish recommendations for the RIPE community
• Identify areas where communications efforts or materials may be required
There's nothing about defining the scope of the RIPE community that I can see.
Or making that a constraint on the TF's work.
> Similarly, when we discussed values, we were told that the community only
> really had hard agreement on the procedural values (e.g. open, transparent,
> bottom-up, consensus).
With respect, that's another non-answer answer. Those values are also
orthogonal to accountability. The principles of bottom-up consensus are
fundamental. The issue is I think how these get exercised for the purposes of
accountability. That's something I expected the TF would have considered.
> We had thought this was more or less covered in the first part of the
> document. However, perhaps this was only implied and we can take another look
> to see if it needs to be stated more explicitly.
Yes, I think so. The current document does not seem to align well (clearly?)
with the TF's remit.
>> Next, I strongly object to the recommendation that the process for selecting
>> WG chairs should be aligned. This is out of scope for the TF.
>
> We take your point. However, we would suggest that just as there is a single
> PDP that applies to all working groups, and a requirement that the
> communitiy's policies are published as RIPE Documents - there are
> accountability benefits from having consistency in some aspects. You can
> still have a bottom-up community with a shared PDP.
Yet again, this is answering a completely different question.
WG Chair appointments are out of scope for the TF. How WG Chairs are
accountable (and for what) are of course in scope. But not *how* they are
appointed. Unless of course some WG uses a procedure which isn't transparent or
violates our fundamental principle of bottom-up consensus.
> With that being said, this was only a recommendation for the community to
> consider.
IMO this must be removed from the report. It's out of scope. The TF had no
remit to consider this matter.
