Hello,
First, thank you all for being patient with my lack of response. I have been extremely busy, and have put aside replying to any email that is not mission critical because my day job required it. As I made clear at the meeting and on the list multiple times, this is one of the reasons that I pushed for a swift appointment/anointment of co-chairs. The Coop WG work is simply not something I can do on my own, especially not right now.
Secondly, I do not know what the revised schedule for selecting co-chairs is. This, I think, is a critical point.
Timeline: I proposed a schedule before RIPE72, and received pushback at the meeting and on the list. Collin proposed a revised schedule at the meeting, and received pushback. All of this referring to vague protocol, but none willing to follow written protocol (see, my proposal before RIPE72) when it pushes against some or another desired outcome. Here is revealed an uneasy norm on the list, in which the Chairs and others can suggest what they will, but have no authority to actually move forward with one or another suggestion. The membership of the list, on the other hand, has no responsibility but to declare dissatisfaction. The tone this sets is both unproductive and, frankly, hostile. Corinne summarized this beautifully in a past email. Combine this with the fact that chairing the group is a volunteer position, and we have a situation in which, frankly, busy people with day jobs put dealing with mailing list vagueness and hostility toward the bottom of their list.
So, what do you suggest? Were I to move forward, I would very quickly select Achilles and Collin as co-chairs. They are both active, helpful, and have shown themselves to be directly engaged in issues central to the Coop WG.
However, I expect resistance to these selections. Following such resistance, I have no clarity on what happens, or what others suppose should happen.
Best,
Meredith