Hi Nick,
> 1) Inputs from the legal team, should be open and transparently presented
to the community.
Task forces, committees, etc have reporting structures which allow them
room to do what they are tasked to do, and then report back.
There's no general principle which mandates that they need to report
every single input, and doing so would slow down their work output to a
crawl.
-> Agree, but that doesn't preclude to have that information open. I believe at
some point it was mention that there are minutes available, I was not able to
find them, so that's why I'm asking for.
> 2) As with any other documents, policies, etc., Community should be able
to provide any inputs that we believe necessary, and not just "general
principles or specific questions".
I don't believe any tf / committee has said that they don't want
community input. Most, or indeed all of them go out of their way to
solicit this.
That's why we have mailing lists like, for example, diversity@.
-> Exactly, and that's what I wanted to ask for clarification. I may have been
only the wording from Mirjam email which was not clear to me.
> I want to insist in asking what is the rational for excluding anyone from
a TF,
Looking at this from a different point of view, you're asking whether
people have the right to barge their way on to a task force or committee.
Could you point us to any TF structure or committee structure anywhere
in the world which accepts this on a point of principle?
-> You are reversing the issue, in the wrong way. Any TF or committee can have
rules of engagement or participation or whatever you want to call them *of
course*. BUT those rules are explicit and clear since day one, not *after*. For
example, we can say "this is the required expertise, or the maximum number of
members (first in?), or a combination of those".
I don't think we have a RIPE document that say that one of the attributions of
the chairs is to constitute committees or TFs in a *closed* way, decided "on
the spot" and arbitrarily managed. If we have it, then can't say anymore we are
an open community, because that's discriminatory.
What I've been asking for since I was denied participating in the CoC TF is
very simple: what is the document that shows those rules. You don't think
that's sensible to ask? Do you think "no response" is a sensible response?
If we don't have those rules set and openly published *before* the call for
participants of the TF starts, then they may be changed across the duration of
the TF. This is a clear sign of "arbitrarity", if I can say so in English. It
is an untrustable situation, common in dictatorial regimes, not open
communities. I don't think this is what we want in this community. Correct me
if I'm wrong.
Nick
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure,
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
