But they do have more influence than others, and as far I know, that is entirely intended.
As an example, they have the responsibility of making sure that task forces are created when needed, you can not just do that as a normal community participant. -Cynthia On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 1:39 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list < [email protected]> wrote: > Chairing a meeting is not giving them different attributions in terms of > policy development. We need someone to coordinate and steer the work, but > not to actually decide or have more influence than other community > participants. > > > > > > El 25/11/21 13:36, "Cynthia Revström" <[email protected]> escribió: > > > > Hi Jordi, > > > > > neither RIPE chairs or WG chairs must be or have a different treatment > vs the rest of the community > > I think it is pretty well known that this is false, the RIPE chair is > treated differently as they chair the meetings and as far I know the RIPE > chair can also invite someone to RIPE meetings/remove their ticket cost. > (not entirely certain on the last part, sorry if I got it wrong) > > > > -Cynthia > > > > On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 10:34 AM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list < > [email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Mirjam, all, > > Firstly, I can't agree with how this update to the PDP is being managed. > The PDP is updated by the PDP as a policy proposal and it should follow > exactly the same process. Is not only because this is the way the other > RIRs do, but because we already did that not long time ago: > https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2018-04 > > We can't approve a PDP change not following the PDP process, otherwise, we > set a terrible precedent of an exception with will be an illegal act > against our own laws (understanding the PDP as our law) and highly > discriminatory (neither RIPE chairs or WG chairs must be or have a > different treatment vs the rest of the community). > > In addition to that, here are my observations: > > 1) We discussed this already a few times in the past. It is abnormal that > the PDP is considered as a RIPE Chair "authored" document. Again, it is > discriminatory and no sense. It is just one more document in our policy > set, actually the one on top of all them, and all them belong to the > community and are authored by the community. > > 2) Actually, related to that, there is something that I've already > discussed with Hans Petter (when he was RIPE Chair), Marco (when he was the > PDO) and other folks several times, but this is the opportunity to take an > action, if we decide to update the PDP. Policies *are community documents*, > they should not have the authors names. Authors work on that to voluntarily > support the community. I understand that during the discussion the name is > visible in the web pages for the policy proposal and then in the archives, > etc., but they must not be part of the final policy text, unless we want to > do like in IETF, where we have an ack section, to recognize all the > discussion participants, not just the authors. So consequently, we should > have some clear text about that in the PDP update, and we must remove all > those mentions in the actual documents (option 1). Otherwise, all the > document should include the authors (option 2). Because it is > discriminatory that a few documents have author names and not all them. > Note that my personal preference is option 1. > > 3) I strongly disagree that we should have this text "This document deals > solely with policy. Everything else, such as RIPE NCC business practices, > procedures and operations is out of scope.". The first sentence is wrong, > as the PDP, as demonstrated previously, also deals with PDP changes. The > PDP is the only way the community has to deal with documents and reach > consensus on them before being published. There are documents which aren't > policy but also follow the PDP. The second part is a big mistake. The only > way the community has to influence how the NCC implements policies, if > something goes wrong, is the policy making process. Otherwise, the > membership (which is a small fraction of the community) decides to ignore > the community (ignoring policies), we are just lost. Yes, there is a > similar text in the actual PDP, but it is just wrong, we should work to > remove it. > > 4) The text about the "idea" is wrong and untrue. Past experience doesn't > show that. There have been many policy proposals that didn't followed that > process and they are actual policies. The PDP is a set of rules, strict > rules of a process, not "rules and suggestions". We can't mix rules and > suggestions in a formal PDP text. > > 5) I strongly disagree with the removal of the text that clarify what are > "policies". We agreed long time ago that we should work on BCPs, > guidelines, etc. If we remove that then those documents lose their > umbrella. I will agree to reword it, but not removing it. > > 6) There is another big chunk of text that has been removed, and it is > about the open/bottom-up transparent process. I understand that it has been > reworded, but there are some keyworks that are now missing which are key. > > 7) "After preliminary discussion of the idea", is broken. Because it is > not mandatory to have a preliminary "idea". We have discussed this already > many times. There is no need for a discussion before a formal proposal, > neither the chairs have any discriminatory authority to reject a proposal, > if it is in the scope of the WG. And in case it is not in scope of any WG, > must come to the plenary (difficult to be in that case, but it must be > clear). > > 8) Across the text you use "proposer" as this was the wording in the > original PDP. I suggest that we have a foot note or similar alternative way > to indicate the first time the term is used that the proposer is one or a > set of authors, just for clarity. Not everybody is used to the PDP and if > they read it, they should be able to quickly understand that author(s) and > proposer(s) is the same. > > 9) Regarding "Clearly and concisely formulate the problem statement and > the intended result", is not good, because sometime we need policies to > improve and existing one, the problem statement then is not so obvious for > all (not the same "degree" of understanding the need for a solution), or we > need to clarify text because the wording can be misinterpreted. I will > instead use something like "Clearly and concisely formulate the problem > statement, opportunity for improvement, or required clarification and the > intended result". > > 10) I think we should take the opportunity to define the discussion and > review time as a fixed one, not something like "at least four weeks". If > the community believe that a proposal needs more discussion, it can be > discussed later among authors/chairs/community, but the initial discussion > phase should be the same for all the proposals and not (again), create > "up-front" discriminations. > > 11) I think we are missing (even in the actual PDP) that a policy may be > "abandoned" when authors become irresponsible (they don't react to the > requests for a new version, etc.). In some other languages, withdrawn and > abandoned is not the same, and consequently many folks, non-native English, > may have difficulties to differentiate it. > > 12) I don't agree that the co-chairs are the only responsible of > withdrawing a proposal, it shall be done with the agreement of the authors. > Chairs may perceive that a new version can't make progress, and of course > they may be wrong. Also, if this is not accepted, authors can just send a > new proposal with the new version (and this can't be avoided), and chairs > are there only to manage the discussion and help the community to determine > consensus, but nothing else. > > 13) We had a long discussion about the appeals process and now it seems > that we have forgot about most of it. I strongly oppose to this, also > because you have clearly discriminated me, according to the actual PDP and > you haven't proceeded with my appeals proposal. Where in the actual PDP say > that you can just ignore a proposal ???? I radically disagree that the > appeal is handled by the WGCC. The community must decide about how to > handle that with an independent set of people. Our first appeal > demonstrated that: some WG chairs that have disagreed with the proposal > under appeal were taking part on the WGCC discussion. How come that can be > considered neutral and transparent? > > 14) Section 5 shows to me at least, a big theater, really ugly. How come, > we can use something different to change the PDP? How come we can *already* > use that procedure to amend the PDP *before* it has been approved? How > come, the community can appeal then the RIPE Chair(s) decision? No way! > > > Regards, > Jordi > @jordipalet > > > > El 28/10/21 14:16, "ripe-list en nombre de Mirjam Kuehne" < > [email protected] en nombre de [email protected]> escribió: > > Dear colleagues, > > The RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP) was last updated in 2018. > With > experience from the first appeal and some other suggested improvements > to the process, we felt it was time to work on a new version. > > The draft version can be found here: > > https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-documents/other-documents/policy-development-process-in-ripe > > Please send any feedback, questions or suggestions to this list. We > will > also reserve some time during the RIPE 83 Community Plenary for this > topic. We will then issue a last call for consensus after RIPE 83. > > Here is a list of the most significant changes: > > - We shortened the introduction to clarify that this document deals > with > policy only. > > - We added a section prior to going into details about the formal > process: > It strongly suggests that an idea for a new policy or a change in > policy > is first discussed on the relevant mailing list before it enters the > formal PDP. This can potentially save the proposer and the community a > lot of time and can lead to a better result in the end. > > - We clarified that the relevant WG chairs need to summarize the state > of the discussion after each phase. This will make clear what the state > of the discussion is and if community members are required to restate > their position. > > - We clarified the appeals process, especially who should recuse > themselves, and we added clear deadlines and responsibilities. > > - We added a section 5. that describes how the PDP is changed (by > community consensus). > > - In the Policy Proposal Template in Appendix B we added a point 11.a.: > Motivation for the proposal. > > - We made a number of editorial changes in places where it was not > clear > who is tasked to do what on which list (e.g. the WG chairs or the RIPE > NCC Policy Officer). > > For reference, here is the current version of the PDP: > https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-710 > > Kind regards, > Mirjam & Niall > RIPE Chair Team > > > > > > > ********************************************** > 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. > > > > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change > your subscription options, please visit: > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ripe-list > > > ********************************************** > 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. > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change > your subscription options, please visit: > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ripe-list >
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ripe-list
