[PDB Data Ownership-TF] Apricot 2020
mustang at terahertz.net
Sun Feb 16 20:25:03 PST 2020
From my perspective, I’m 100% ok with a public meeting with where we are at and soliciting any feedback.
Would be a nice sounding board since we appear to be close to finishing up.
> On Feb 16, 2020, at 8:01 PM, Filiz Yilmaz <filiz at peeringdb.com> wrote:
> Few things:
> Nobody said we are not transparent or that this TF has a closed-behind the doors format or it is closed.
> We have made our mailing list publicly archived and we are recording everything.
> We also have an understanding that we take important decisions after ample discussion among ourselves.
> But we also operate as a TF. TF members can post and participate on ongoing discussions that impact the work of the TF. So while we are transparent, active participation and the actual work to be done is exclusively for the TF members. As such we have not made our Google doc public for everyone for example.
> We did not set a clear set of rules of engagement at the beginning because this group is pretty mature in running a bottom-up process and I believe everyone are familiar with how a TF operates in our industry circles.
> I think when a public session should or should not be had, is in fact a subject of a collective decision of the TF.
> There is a big difference between an internal informal discussion between few TF members who happen to be in the same meeting (which was the suggestion about this meeting initially) versus a public engagement session with community at large at a meeting. Latter requires proper preparation and coordination because we will be talking about our findings and decisions and only few of us will be representing the TF.
> Transparency also starts “within” the group of course.
> To my understanding this was an internal and informal TF mtg between you, me, Terry and Job (before his trip got cancelled) so far. I had posts to this ml in order to arrange even an online GoTo mtg so other TF members could join into the meeting, like any of our previous meetings, following the same transparency goals.
> Frankly to me what was not so transparent is that it now turned into a public engagement session without a clear understanding of the rest of the TF.
> Agreed on having an open session is good in general for raising awareness about our work but like I said it requires preparation. It is hard to do that when you think a meeting is an internal one with some of the TF members but then it turns out to be a public one with a totally different audience.
> All good from my end having the session as it is announced now on Whova app and as I said I will be there. We are all busy and communication is not easy but It is also key to the success of this TF. Lets help each other keeping each other up to date and well informed.
>> On 17 Feb 2020, at 08:01, Arnold Nipper <arnold at nipper.de> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 16.02.2020 21:45, Filiz Yilmaz wrote:
>>> In principle TF should have agreed on this.
>> is the TF a closed shop meanwhile? I can't remember that this was
>> decided. However, I also was not able to attend every call.
>>> I do not remember support for a public presentation when Arnold
>>> suggested it previously.
>> I've handed in a presentation for the Apricot Peering Forum and will
>> mention the DTF briefly as well. No details, though.
>>> As your initial call for meeting was for an internal TF members only
>>> meeting for those who would be in MEL, my understanding was not at
>>> all for this so far either.
>>> There had been luckily some movement in the last TF meeting. So we
>>> can provide a latest. You and Arnold were not present at that
>>> meeting. You can of course watch the recording to get up to date.
>> Having an open meeting is a good idea imho and is fully in line with the
>> PeeringDB principles of openness and community support.
>> CU soon
>> Arnold Nipper
>> email: arnold at nipper.de
>> mobile: +49 172 2650958
> DataOwnership-TF mailing list
> DataOwnership-TF at lists.peeringdb.com
More information about the DataOwnership-TF