I hesitated to send this. But as a good friend of RIPE - and yes that is how I see myself - I would like to think that RIPE is still more than robust enough to accept another voice.
We are not in a happy place right now. And I am not just thinking about this damn virus thing. Though that is stressing an awful lot of people. Elsewhere I have been hearing - it has been anecdotal, but from health professionals - of an up-tick in suicides and attempted suicides. I hope everyone on this list is still safe and well. But when we have over 2000 people registering for a meeting then it is statistically certain that some know people who have been sick and maybe some who have died. So perhaps more than usual it is a time to carry out our business with a degree of calmness and sensitivity. We can do it. Any rush is of our own making, our own choosing. Mind you I cannot help wonder if we would be having this discussion and in this way if we had been able to meet in Berlin. I don’t think anyone is certain anymore if we will even meet up again in Milan. But that would be good. Anyway I was struck by the subject line of this thread. I am not aware of anyone attacking the non-com, individually or collectively. I think there is community support. Likewise I am not aware of any personal attack on any of the gang of four! However a number of people, good people from the community, have expressed concerns. I think it was good that those concerns were expressed and I appreciated how they were expressed. I have been less comfortable with the responses. I just don’t buy the sunk costs argument. In the real world we all - most of us? - have walked away at one point or another. We accept the losses incurred - emotional, financial, whatever - and do something different. It is not always great. But it is sometimes necessary. I don’t accept the implied time constraints. As far as I am concerned this process was started by Rob over five years ago. When Rob passed the baton to Hans-Petter he said he did it like that because there was no procedure. And I do not think anyone, including Rob and Hans-Petter of course, presumed that after a number of years Hans-Petter, and at his sole discretion, would do just like Rob? So we had our problem statement. Right there, right then. Except it has all taken a bit longer than anyone might have expected? I do not quite see the relationship between the non-com and the procedure the way some apparently see it. I also sense that some others share my view The agreed procedure was not an attempt to micro-manage the non-com. It was rather a tool given to the non-com to help them with their job. I would expect the non-com to know more about how the procedure works and what its limitations are. In a deep sense I am still happier with the non-com than I am with the procedure because I would expect the non-com to tell us whether the procedure is helping them to deliver or not. I suspect though that things have not played out that well. Only one name in the beginning? So the other three were invited, encouraged cajoled by the non-com? i now wonder to what extent this was due to the “job description”. I confess I have somewhat lost track of what the common perception is. Once upon a time, and indeed for a long time, the RIPE Chair was a part-time unpaid position. And to an extent at the discretion of the RIPE community? Just like WG chairs and all the rest of the wonderful volunteer army. Now we are talking about a full-time salaried position with NCC? Or what? Anyway I hope others are clear! My choice though of the word “salaried” was deliberate. I was being a tad provocative. But i hope for a good reason. There has been discussions about the separation between RIPE and NCC. I don’t want to preempt them. But if the RIPE Chair is a “full-time salaried position with NCC” would we have done it this way? Seriously? I should add that as I clearly no longer have the expertise in dutch employment laws that I once ought to have had I would very much like advice from somebody who does. I am aware for example than in some European countries you cannot simply renew temporary / fixed-term contracts. There comes a point that by law “temporary” becomes “permanent”. Anyway there is a relatively new advisor with NCC who definitely knows an awful lot about this. But then again Axel has always been discrete! However to close I would simply say that the non-com has my support. But i would encourage them to continue look to the whole RIPE community. We in turn count on their intelligence and integrity. Earlier in this thread Rob was mentioned. I have no idea what he might have done. And I have no way of contacting him? But back then he was not always constrained by process or the lack thereof. Gordon
