Hi, all Joe wrote: > However, I remember hearing feedback from people not on the NomCom > that they would prefer more separation between the RIPE NCC and the RIPE > community when such decisions are made in the future. To speak directly, > the general concern (not directed at our current esteemed leader!) is whether > it is reasonable to ask someone to represent the RIPE community in difficult > discussions with the RIPE NCC, perhaps in some future area of conflict, if > that > person is functionally indistinguishable from being a RIPE NCC employee.
I provided such feedback at the time. Mirjam has been a fabulous chair, and while we celebrate this, we should not forget to address the potential for future conflicts as you have described, Joe. > I do not see anything in this document that mentions this particular issue. There are a few signals which this document does contain which do speak to this issue: Draft: The Relationship between RIPE and the RIPE NCC, says: > RIPE proposed the RIPE NCC as an activity under the guidance of RIPE but > funded and governed separately The draft describes a full separation of governance. > The RIPE NCC is a neutral and independent home for activities that benefit > the whole community The RIPE NCC's independence and neutrality within RIPE must mean that it neither participates in RIPE governance (maintaining independence) nor expresses opinions on such matters of its independence (upholding neutrality). While we hold all involved individuals in high regard, cementing this level of independence must be achieved by amending ripe-788. Specifically, someone other than the Chair of the NCC Executive Board should appoint the NomCom chair. Additionally, including NCC employees in the "Not Qualified" section of the volunteer description in the same document would reinforce this stance. As a result, the draft Mirjam circulated also requires revision, particularly the section on "RIPE Chair Selection," which currently states that "RIPE relies on the RIPE NCC board" for certain functions. This reliance seems inconsistent with the earlier emphasis on the separation between the two organisations. I have some general feedback on the draft as well. Daniel, thank you for leading the effort in preparing this document. I wonder if Section 4, which refers to "RIPE" and "RIPE NCC" as organisations, employs the right terminology. Since RIPE is a community rather than an organisation—and is distinct from the NCC organisation—the wording might need reconsideration. I imagine you've already grappled with this phrasing during your preparation. In Section 2, there's a double negative: "RIPE has recognised that some of its activities cannot not be performed well just by volunteers." To convey the intended meaning more clearly, it should read "cannot be performed well just by volunteers." Regarding the "Risks" section, while it acknowledges potential friction between RIPE and the RIPE NCC, it lacks details on mechanisms to mitigate or resolve such conflicts. Elaborating on established dispute resolution processes or communication protocols would strengthen the document and reassure readers of the organisations' ability to handle disagreements effectively. Happy weekend, all Andy Davidson
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/ripe-list.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
