On 2 Aug 2023, at 17:54, Andy Davidson wrote: > I like that there is a document draft and I like that it is short, thank you. > :-)
Thank you, Andy, for this encouraging feedback, which I appreciate very much. > We need to make sure that it is not too short. Agreed. > The guiding principle that RIPE NCC team members are simultaneously valued > community members is correct and has my full support. Appreciated. > It is appropriate too that NCC team members disclose their position to the NCC > when providing guidance in a RIPE community setting (p2). Your reading of p2 seems quite different from what I believe we (including my co-authors) intended. Perhaps we expressed it too succinctly, and had better have put it like this: "In settings where RIPE is preparing guidance for the RIPE NCC, RIPE NCC staff shall take care both to disclose their position to, and to avoid giving direction to, the community." Specifically, I understand the disclosure involved as to the community, rather than to the NCC, and that for "NCC team members ... [to be] providing guidance" rather than non-directive, fact-based advice, is what they are expected, as I understand p2, to avoid. In an earlier message (https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ripe-list/2023-July/002973.html, three paragraphs, beginning "I can elaborate further, ..."), I've tried to explain my understanding of p2. > The document must emphasise the need for RIPE NCC staff to proactively manage > their conflict of interest risks when engaging with the community. > Particularly so > in situations where a RIPE community working group, task force, or committee > undertakes projects with activity plan, budgets, or headcount implications. > It is evident that individuals involved in authoring such activity plans or > holding > positions within the NCC management cannot maintain the arm's length principle > in various community activities. This directly contradicts the wording > outlined > in principle 1 (participate on same terms). I don't see the contradiction. It seems to me that most participants in RIPE have to accommodate their engagement in the community with their obligations to an employer, and that finding the proper accommodation is not an essentially different challenge according to whether one's employer is the RIPE NCC or some other enterprise. > As a responsible community, it is incumbent upon us to safeguard NCC staff > from potential conflicts of interest by defining clear protocols for how > such situations are considered and managed when NCC staff participate > in RIPE activities with activity plans, budgets, or hiring decisions. I believe that we have a long-established principle which covers such situations. As far as I know, this has not been articulated as a principle, but has occasionally been given context-specific expression, as (for example) by Gert Döring (https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2008-September/003629.html) on 2 September 2008: "As has been mentioned before: the address policy WG does not have the power to actually decide on the final charging scheme. We give input to the AGM (= annual general meeting of all NCC members), and the AGM decides on the final charging scheme to be implemented." The underlying principle which I perceive behind expressions such as this, is that RIPE does not give direction to the RIPE NCC on how to raise or apply resources, but rather indicates work (by documenting an NWI) or policy (using the PDP) which the community considers desirable by consensus. > Can this be captured in the lovely succinct way that you have approached > the first two drafts? I hope so. I am not sure that the principle which I have just tried to articulate belongs in this document. The recommendations of the RIPE 2020 NomCom also call for documentation of community consensus on the relationship between RIPE and the RIPE NCC. This is future work, which I expect will produce a document where it seems to me that this principle might be better placed. It may be appropriate to add explanatory or motivational text to the present document, outlining a "traditional" principle and anticipating its formal articulation in a companion document. > I recognise your effort in putting together this document, it is not a simple > undertaking to author governance material. I really appreciate this recognition. I'm sure you also appreciate that the more succinct a document is to be, the more effort it will require. Finally, I want to take the opportunity to mention that, even without an employer to set my agenda, I still have to accommodate my engagement in the community with other obligations, and will therefore be taking a break from my RIPE duties from this (Friday) afternoon until early in September. Thanks again, Andy. Best regards, Niall as co-author of the proposed RIPE document rather than as RIPE Vice-Chair -- 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
