Dear group members, This is a joint message by Julf and Achilleas. Following the announcement/appointment of the new co-chairs by Meredith, we thank Meredith and the group for the trust they show to us and we would like to confirm the acceptance of the proposal for a position of Co-Chair of the RIPE Cooperation Working Group. We regret that Meredith and Collin decided to step down, we hope they will continue to follow the Workgroup and provide advice based on their experience and knowledge. We also ask for the support of the Group and the RIPE team, in order to fulfil the Group's objectives and have a successful meeting already in Madrid. To this end, we would like to take stock where we stand, so we invite the members to provide suggestions on substance issues they would like to see being dealt (including, the co-chair selection process). Best regards Julf and Achilleas From: cooperation-wg [mailto:cooperation-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Meredith Whittaker Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 4:29 PM To: Jim Reid Cc: RIPE Co-operation WG Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] time-lines for co-chair appointments Thanks, all, Jim, I appreciate your reiterating the process. The issue is, as I see it, that we've already gone through two rounds of this process, imperfect as they may have been, and pretending that "doing it again" will produce something "better" seems like a stretch. To review -- we have four candidates. These are: · Achilleas Kemos · Collin Anderson · Julf Helsingius · Analia Aspis Analia won't be able to make the RIPE meetings. So, while her experience is formidable and her voice very welcome on the list, she does not look like a good choice for Co-chair. That leaves us with three candidates. I know Collin, he has been a shadow chair in the past, helping organize and assemble WG sessions, and working on a number of policy and research issues in collaboration with RIPE community members. Achilleas brings considerable policy expertise, and can help bring policymakers from EC and otherwise into the RIPE community. This is a great asset. Julf is a last-minute candidate who is clearly invested and experienced. His tone is even-keeled, and by all accounts, he appears to be someone who'd be a pleasure to work with. So this is what I will do: given that I feel the years of work I've put into the Co-op WG are not being weighted or acknowledged, that many list members would prefer to see me reflect back their opinion passively than voice my own based on these years of experience, and given the increasing time-pressures I'm under in all other areas of life, I am going to step down. I will remain available to answer questions and help guide the process through Barcelona, but I will no longer be Co-chair. In my place, I will appoint Collin, Achilleas, and Julf as co-chairs. Thanks, Meredith On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 10:06 AM, Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com<mailto:jim@rfc1035.com>> wrote:

On 11 Jul 2016, at 16:35, Meredith Whittaker <meredithrachel@google.com<mailto:meredithrachel@google.com>> wrote:

So, what do you suggest?

It’s not up to me (or anyone else) to say how you should run your WG Meredith. That’s for you and your WG co-chairs to decide in consultation with the WG. However given where we are, here’s what I would do if I was in your shoes. Just reset the co-chair appointment process and start again. Neither of the two suggested time-lines has been met. The WG is confused and uncertain how to proceed. The agreed process wasn’t followed and things have gone off the rails. The best thing for everyone now is to pretend that never happened and start from scratch once more. There’s no point apportioning blame or playing “he said, she said” about what happened since that would not help. I think the way to proceed would be for the WG Chair to announce on the mailing list that 1? 2? co-chairs need to be appointed and invite candidates to step forward or be nominated. The WG chair should not go beyond that by naming any personal preferences or “qualified candidates”. This is for the WG and the candidates to decide for themselves. Anyone who wants to be considered must also make that known on the list. Discussions then take place on the mailing list about suitability of these candidates and the WG hopefully converges on consensus. If/when a consensus emerges, the WG Chair makes a judgement about that and announces their decision on the list. This is pretty much what the agreed appointment process says. That agreed process allows 2 weeks for volunteers to come forward. Then there’s two weeks after that for the WG Chair(s) to announce on the list who the candidates are and invite the WG to express their approval or otherwise of the presented candidates. Two weeks after that the WG has hopefully arrived at consensus and the WG Chair(s) announces the result. If the process is followed, it should produce a happy outcome. Famous last words... Starting this process right now is probably unwise because this six-week long exercise would run until the end of August while most of Europe is on holiday. OTOH, starting things once the summer holidays are over means nobody could be appointed until mid-October at the earliest. So it may be an idea to first ask the WG if it wants to wait that long or get things under way sooner. This will determine when to open the floodgates for nominees. When that announcement is made on the list for interested parties, it would be helpful to clearly state the dates when “nominations” close, when the announcement of the candidates is due and when a final decision is expected from the WG. This should hopefully concentrate minds. hope this helps -- Meredith Whittaker Open Research Lead Google NYC