Hi Collin, Thank you for your concrete suggestions. In my view, this schedule is productive and fair, and has the benefit of providing more space for discussion and consideration from the community. If I don't hear any pushback from community members, I will progress by adhering to this schedule. Best, Meredith On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 1:06 PM, Collin Anderson <collin@measurementlab.net> wrote:

Thanks for the clear summary Gordon,

Since there is only now a convergence of understanding about the process and the impetus for its consideration, I would concur that we should set clear deadlines. Outside of the session there was another person that expressed interest, and I appreciate that there are people that are travelling back from RIPE and will not be able to contribute by the weekend.

So, attempting to speak outside of self-interest, I would suggest that we set a deadline of Friday next week (June 3). Several of the candidates have offered a vision of their involvements on this list, and I would also suggest that others do as well, to ensure that the discussion is at least informed by those positions rather than simply a reflection of activated social networks. Additional, unless there is an unexpected issue requiring consultation, the WG is typically dormant for the few weeks following RIPE, and so there is not an immediate need outside of assurance that this is settled within a reasonable period of time.

To add one more point of order to the agenda, I would mention that the discussion period should include whether to elect 1 or 2 (or 39, I suppose) additional co-chairs, but Meredith can structure that conversation.

I believe that would put the schedule <https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/coop/cooperation-wg-chair-selection-process> at:

June 3: Deadline for declaration of candidacy. June 4: Start of discussion about requirements and candidate qualifications. June 17: End of discussion. June 18: Chair starts consideration of consensus. July 1: Chair conveys consensus.

Is that correct? Does it seem fair to others?

Cordially, Collin

On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 12:37 PM, Gordon Lennox < gordon.lennox.13@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Thanks again to Meredith for an interesting agenda this morning.

The end though was slightly rushed and we ran quite late so it is good that that the discussion can continue on the list. We obviously did not have the time this topic required during the session.

I think we now need two discussions: one about the WG itself and one about the co-chairs. They are linked. But the one about the WG is and will be ongoing. I will focus here on the co-chairs and in particular the process.

I still think though that we should keep with published the process.

This is where I think we are:

* the chair requests candidates. Done.

* there is a period of about two weeks when names can be put forward. On-going?

I think though we are coming towards the end of that period. I think we ought to be a little bit flexible on when that period actually comes to and end given how the process kicked-off. But I presume that it will end this weekend?

** the chair then announces the final list of candidates.

** there is a another period of about two weeks when the WG can have a conversation about particular requirements and with the candidates.

** the chair announces the consensus.

I see no need to rush this any faster.

Do people agree?

I would hope though that in the future we might stretch the time-scales a little - take the published time-lines as an indicative baseline rather than binding formal constraint - and take a more relaxed approach.

Gordon

-- Meredith Whittaker Open Research Lead Google NYC

Hi Roger, Thank you for your constructive comment. To be clear, we made the announcement for candidates before this meeting. And, candidates have come forward (and still can). I think we can discuss what we'd like these people to do or not do, but I don't think it's productive to walk back the process to review a conversation we could be having in parallel. Thanks, Meredith On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 2:57 PM, Roger Jørgensen <rogerj@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 1:06 PM, Collin Anderson <collin@measurementlab.net> wrote: <snip>

...

I believe that would put the schedule at:

June 3: Deadline for declaration of candidacy. June 4: Start of discussion about requirements and candidate qualifications. June 17: End of discussion. June 18: Chair starts consideration of consensus. July 1: Chair conveys consensus.

Is that correct? Does it seem fair to others?

I don't disagree on the dates, but isn't it strange to have people come forward BEFORE we discuss what we want from them?

Suggest we rather start now on figuring out what we want and possible candidates can announce themself over the next few weeks so by around 17.June we have a good idea of who are interested, and what we expect from them.

--

Roger Jorgensen | ROJO9-RIPE rogerj@gmail.com | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | roger@jorgensen.no

-- Meredith Whittaker Open Research Lead Google NYC

Agree completely, Roger :) On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 3:09 PM, Roger Jørgensen <rogerj@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 3:02 PM, Meredith Whittaker <meredithrachel@google.com> wrote:

...

Hi Roger,

Thank you for your constructive comment.

To be clear, we made the announcement for candidates before this meeting. And, candidates have come forward (and still can). I think we can discuss what we'd like these people to do or not do, but I don't think it's productive to walk back the process to review a conversation we could be having in parallel.

fair point, it's already started the process ongoing, it's strange but done is done:-)

... now I guess the important point is to get atleast one more chair to support you, I will suggest two more chairs so you are thee in total. These two should have different background and view on things. Get some diversity and experience to the table.

--

Roger Jorgensen | ROJO9-RIPE rogerj@gmail.com | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | roger@jorgensen.no

-- Meredith Whittaker Open Research Lead Google NYC