All, I have been following the discussion about the appointment of chair (I am nervous over use of the word "election") of this WG and think about what features I would like to see on a new chair. I must admit I think it is important the individuals being chairs are active in the RIPE community as chairs as a collective have a responsibility in the RIPE PDP. I further think at least one chair should be relatively plugged in and active in the general policy development process in the RIPE region (not only EU). And because of this I must say I am still looking for strong(er) candidates than the ones at the moment have announced their availability. I do understand Meredith want a co-chair given I not only initiated this wg, but also was one of the co-chairs for a couple of years. One do not want to be alone. But, we should appoint the correct people because they are the correct people, and not because we must have two co-chairs. I because of this would like to see more candidates before I am prepared on saying whether I think one of the today available persons include the one(s) I would like to see as co-chair(s). And as a result of this, I request the point on the agenda be to discuss the appointment process, requirements etc but maybe not the actual appointment. Patrik
On 24 May 2016, at 11:08, Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se> wrote:
I have been following the discussion about the appointment of chair (I am nervous over use of the word "election") of this WG and think about what features I would like to see on a new chair.
I share these concerns and fully support the points you've raised Patrik. Any talk of elections rather than consensus decisions in a RIPE context gives me the heebie jeebies. These get worse when it's those in leadership positions who talk about elections. The co-chair candidates that have emerged to date do not appear to have deep roots in the RIPE community. Although all three are familiar with Internet goverance matters in general, they're somewhat detached from the policy development and Internet governance issues in the RIPE region. This is troubling. As a result, I'm reluctant to support any of them. It would be good for the WG to discuss the requirements and criteria for the new co-chair. I hope we can have that discussion when the WG meets this week. Once there's consensus in the WG on these requirements and criteria, it should be easier to decide which candidate(s) would be the best choice. This may mean the appointment of a co-chair can't be done in Copenhagen and will need to be delayed.
Hello dear friends! Let's parse this out. The necessary but not sufficient conditions for any candidate are, roughly 1. They can afford to come to RIPE; 2. They are willing to come to RIPE; 3. They have enthusiasm and relevant expertise on issues important to the RIPE community. We have three people (and maybe more -- speak up!) who meet this criteria. Beyond this, there are many things that *could* make a great candidate. But unless we can manifest a human out of mud and thin air, we may have to accept a candidate that doesn't embody all of the qualities on various stakeholders' wish lists. Keeping with the discussion of practical reality, I currently have a very demanding job, and increasingly limited time. I care about RIPE and I'm not comfortable being the single point of failure for a WG whose role is so important to the RIPE community. In other words, I need co-chair. Full stop. Given this, I think a productive direction for this discussion would go something like this: 1. *Openly and kindly ask the current candidates questions*, helping those on the list understand their qualifications more deeply, and assess their abilities and interests. 2. If you have a good lead, *provide concrete suggestions for other candidates*. 3. And, of course, *if the process doesn't sit right, speak up with concrete suggestions on how it can be changed*. The current process was written by me. It uses language the way I use it. It's almost certainly imperfect (appointment, election, choice -- whichever word you want!). I'm more than happy to discuss this. Thanks, Meredith On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 12:37 PM, Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> wrote:
On 24 May 2016, at 11:08, Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se> wrote:
I have been following the discussion about the appointment of chair (I am nervous over use of the word "election") of this WG and think about what features I would like to see on a new chair.
I share these concerns and fully support the points you've raised Patrik.
Any talk of elections rather than consensus decisions in a RIPE context gives me the heebie jeebies. These get worse when it's those in leadership positions who talk about elections.
The co-chair candidates that have emerged to date do not appear to have deep roots in the RIPE community. Although all three are familiar with Internet goverance matters in general, they're somewhat detached from the policy development and Internet governance issues in the RIPE region. This is troubling. As a result, I'm reluctant to support any of them.
It would be good for the WG to discuss the requirements and criteria for the new co-chair. I hope we can have that discussion when the WG meets this week. Once there's consensus in the WG on these requirements and criteria, it should be easier to decide which candidate(s) would be the best choice. This may mean the appointment of a co-chair can't be done in Copenhagen and will need to be delayed.
-- Meredith Whittaker Open Research Lead Google NYC
Hi, Speaking as an outsider from other RIR with little background on how the working group was chartered/how it operates (but someone who has been following this topic and thread), a few comments/questions come to play: 1. What does the operating document of this WG say about its leadership selection process 2. Who decides that more group leader is required 3. What is the scope of decision making for current leader. I think answering those questions could help. Regards On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 11:08 AM, Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se> wrote:
All,
I have been following the discussion about the appointment of chair (I am nervous over use of the word "election") of this WG and think about what features I would like to see on a new chair.
I must admit I think it is important the individuals being chairs are active in the RIPE community as chairs as a collective have a responsibility in the RIPE PDP.
I further think at least one chair should be relatively plugged in and active in the general policy development process in the RIPE region (not only EU).
And because of this I must say I am still looking for strong(er) candidates than the ones at the moment have announced their availability.
I do understand Meredith want a co-chair given I not only initiated this wg, but also was one of the co-chairs for a couple of years. One do not want to be alone.
But, we should appoint the correct people because they are the correct people, and not because we must have two co-chairs.
I because of this would like to see more candidates before I am prepared on saying whether I think one of the today available persons include the one(s) I would like to see as co-chair(s). And as a result of this, I request the point on the agenda be to discuss the appointment process, requirements etc but maybe not the actual appointment.
Patrik
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
You will find answers to your questions on the RIPE web-site. For example the selection process is here: https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/coop/cooperation-wg-chair-selection... Gordon On 26 May 2016 at 12:38, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
Speaking as an outsider from other RIR with little background on how the working group was chartered/how it operates (but someone who has been following this topic and thread), a few comments/questions come to play:
1. What does the operating document of this WG say about its leadership selection process 2. Who decides that more group leader is required 3. What is the scope of decision making for current leader.
I think answering those questions could help.
Regards
participants (5)
-
Gordon Lennox -
Jim Reid -
Meredith Whittaker -
Patrik Fältström -
Seun Ojedeji