time-lines for co-chair appointments
Meredith, I think there’s confusion and uncertainty about the (provisional) schedule for selecting the WG co-chair(s). Well, at least I’m confused and uncertain about what’s meant to be happening. :-) Could you please clarify matters? I have three questions: [1] Is the WG to appoint one or two co-chairs alongside yourself? [2] When is a consensus judgement to be made about who gets appointed? You said in Copenhagen and on the list that this would be done within a week or so: ie by now. Collin proposed a revised schedule. But it doesn’t appear to have had much support from the WG. So it’s not clear (at least not to me) if we’re following that time-line or the earlier one you suggested during the last RIPE meeting. [3] Is the WG expected to reach consensus on Co-chair criteria/requirements before or after the appointment of additional co-chair(s)? If it’s the former, what’s the time-line for the WG to agree those criteria? It might be helpful to open up discrete threads on the list for each answer and have a clear proposal for each that the WG comment on. For instance, “I think the WG should appoint N co-chairs. WG, please say on the list by $date whether you agree with that or not. Silence implies consent.”.
Replying to myself, eh? Meredith, a month has passed since I posted the message below to the list. You haven’t replied. There hasn’t even been an acknowledgement or an “I’m busy and will get back to you/the WG in a few days”. Could you please answer the questions I posted? As far as question [2] goes, the WG now needs a revised schedule for co-chair appointment(s). Nothing has happened. We’ve gone beyond the end points that were in the appointment proposals made by yourself and Collin. Since neither of them has been followed, the WG needs to know and agree a time-line for choosing another co-chair (or two). It would be nice to get an update from you on what the next steps are and when they can be expected to happen. Thanks
On 12 Jun 2016, at 17:45, Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> wrote:
Meredith, I think there’s confusion and uncertainty about the (provisional) schedule for selecting the WG co-chair(s). Well, at least I’m confused and uncertain about what’s meant to be happening. :-)
Could you please clarify matters?
I have three questions:
[1] Is the WG to appoint one or two co-chairs alongside yourself?
[2] When is a consensus judgement to be made about who gets appointed? You said in Copenhagen and on the list that this would be done within a week or so: ie by now. Collin proposed a revised schedule. But it doesn’t appear to have had much support from the WG. So it’s not clear (at least not to me) if we’re following that time-line or the earlier one you suggested during the last RIPE meeting.
[3] Is the WG expected to reach consensus on Co-chair criteria/requirements before or after the appointment of additional co-chair(s)? If it’s the former, what’s the time-line for the WG to agree those criteria?
It might be helpful to open up discrete threads on the list for each answer and have a clear proposal for each that the WG comment on. For instance, “I think the WG should appoint N co-chairs. WG, please say on the list by $date whether you agree with that or not. Silence implies consent.”.
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 On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> wrote:
Replying to myself, eh?
Meredith, a month has passed since I posted the message below to the list. You haven’t replied. There hasn’t even been an acknowledgement or an “I’m busy and will get back to you/the WG in a few days”. Could you please answer the questions I posted?
As far as question [2] goes, the WG now needs a revised schedule for co-chair appointment(s). Nothing has happened. We’ve gone beyond the end points that were in the appointment proposals made by yourself and Collin. Since neither of them has been followed, the WG needs to know and agree a time-line for choosing another co-chair (or two). It would be nice to get an update from you on what the next steps are and when they can be expected to happen.
Thanks
On 12 Jun 2016, at 17:45, Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> wrote:
Meredith, I think there’s confusion and uncertainty about the (provisional) schedule for selecting the WG co-chair(s). Well, at least I’m confused and uncertain about what’s meant to be happening. :-)
Could you please clarify matters?
I have three questions:
[1] Is the WG to appoint one or two co-chairs alongside yourself?
[2] When is a consensus judgement to be made about who gets appointed? You said in Copenhagen and on the list that this would be done within a week or so: ie by now. Collin proposed a revised schedule. But it doesn’t appear to have had much support from the WG. So it’s not clear (at least not to me) if we’re following that time-line or the earlier one you suggested during the last RIPE meeting.
[3] Is the WG expected to reach consensus on Co-chair criteria/requirements before or after the appointment of additional co-chair(s)? If it’s the former, what’s the time-line for the WG to agree those criteria?
It might be helpful to open up discrete threads on the list for each answer and have a clear proposal for each that the WG comment on. For instance, “I think the WG should appoint N co-chairs. WG, please say on the list by $date whether you agree with that or not. Silence implies consent.”.
-- Meredith Whittaker Open Research Lead Google NYC
I am confused. Maybe I am the only one? When it was announced that the new co-chairs were to be Collin and Achilleas I objected. I did not object to the two personalities. I simply did not agree with the WG being presented with a fait accompli without any prior discussion. I said this on the list. I suggested instead that the procedure as drafted by Meredith and published on the RIPE web-site be followed. There was support for that. The procedure was then followed and we now have several candidates for co-chair. There was also a positive exchange about the time-table. I thought the proposal by Collin was good. I do not remember any pushback. I am not aware of any contributions on the list which I would consider unproductive or hostile. Maybe things were said or written elsewhere which I was not party to. But I obviously cannot comment on that. I have seen Julf on the list. I have see Collin on the list. That is good. And of course I guess everybody appreciated Collin stepping in when Meredith was not available. I sympathise with the conflict Meredith feels between the demands of her day-job and the role of co-chair. I guess many of us have been in similar situations and so we know the hard decisions that then have to be taken. But to use that to go back to the fait accompli does not feel right. To ignore the process, to ignore the WG cannot be right. So where do we go from here? Gordon
On 11 Jul 2016, at 17:35, Meredith Whittaker <meredithrachel@google.com> wrote:
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
We would not be going back to a fait accompli. We would be making a decision following a month and some weeks deliberation on the list. However, the mode by which a decision gets made, process or no, is not clear or determined. As co-chair, I expressed my preferences as they relate to people I will be working and collaborating with. My preferences have not changed. That's what I'm able to do. I am not able to divine the "will of the group," nor is there a process drafted to do so. I appreciate your continued participation and your drive toward clarity, Gordon. Thanks, Meredith On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13@gmail.com> wrote:
I am confused. Maybe I am the only one?
When it was announced that the new co-chairs were to be Collin and Achilleas I objected. I did not object to the two personalities. I simply did not agree with the WG being presented with a fait accompli without any prior discussion. I said this on the list. I suggested instead that the procedure as drafted by Meredith and published on the RIPE web-site be followed. There was support for that.
The procedure was then followed and we now have several candidates for co-chair.
There was also a positive exchange about the time-table. I thought the proposal by Collin was good. I do not remember any pushback.
I am not aware of any contributions on the list which I would consider unproductive or hostile. Maybe things were said or written elsewhere which I was not party to. But I obviously cannot comment on that.
I have seen Julf on the list. I have see Collin on the list. That is good. And of course I guess everybody appreciated Collin stepping in when Meredith was not available.
I sympathise with the conflict Meredith feels between the demands of her day-job and the role of co-chair. I guess many of us have been in similar situations and so we know the hard decisions that then have to be taken.
But to use that to go back to the fait accompli does not feel right. To ignore the process, to ignore the WG cannot be right.
So where do we go from here?
Gordon
On 11 Jul 2016, at 17:35, Meredith Whittaker <meredithrachel@google.com> wrote:
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
-- Meredith Whittaker Open Research Lead Google NYC
The "Cooperation WG Chair Selection Process” is here: https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/coop/cooperation-wg-chair-selection... I would like this to be followed. Does anybody object? In particular I note that "the Chair/s declare a decision, based on mailing list discussion, as they would do for a policy proposal.” This implies that “Chair/s” ought not to insist on their own preferences and to ignore the WG. I do not think that is what Meredith has in mind. But I am still seeking clarity. However, based on his contributions on the mailing list, I would like Julf to be a co-chair. I think a co-chair should be active, present. Gordon
On 11 Jul 2016, at 20:54, Meredith Whittaker <meredithrachel@google.com> wrote:
We would not be going back to a fait accompli. We would be making a decision following a month and some weeks deliberation on the list.
However, the mode by which a decision gets made, process or no, is not clear or determined. As co-chair, I expressed my preferences as they relate to people I will be working and collaborating with. My preferences have not changed. That's what I'm able to do. I am not able to divine the "will of the group," nor is there a process drafted to do so.
I appreciate your continued participation and your drive toward clarity, Gordon.
Thanks, Meredith
Gordon Lennox wrote:
However, based on his contributions on the mailing list, I would like Julf to be a co-chair. I think a co-chair should be active, present.
I would also like to see Julf as co-chair. Nick
Gordon,
However, based on his contributions on the mailing list, I would like Julf to be a co-chair. I think a co-chair should be active, present.
I appreciate the expressions of support from both you and Nick, but at the same time I agree that it is up to the current chair(s) to decide, and I do feel that it is important the co-chairs are people the current chair(s) feel happy to work with. Julf
Hi Julf,
On 11 Jul 2016, at 22:58, Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com> wrote:
However, based on his contributions on the mailing list, I would like Julf to be a co-chair. I think a co-chair should be active, present.
I appreciate the expressions of support from both you and Nick, but at the same time I agree that it is up to the current chair(s) to decide, and I do feel that it is important the co-chairs are people the current chair(s) feel happy to work with.
I agree it is up to the chair(s) to decide, i.e. to ‘declare a decision, based on mailing list discussion’. Part of this is the expression by ‘WG members’ of ‘their approval or otherwise of the presented candidates’. Which is what Gordon and Nick did, in line with the formal chair selection process. I too think it is important, as these are volunteer roles, that the current chair(s) personally will ‘feel happy to work with’ the new co-chairs. I trust the existing chair(s) will be transparant when this consideration influences a personal preference. In my case I have to state my ‘approval’ is based not only on visible presence and participation of candidates, but also on (not) knowing them personally and (not) having a clear opinion on their capabilities to add value as co-chairs and lead the WG into the future. Anyway, this is why I want to endorse your candidacy. Best, -Bastiaan
On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 9:17 PM, Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13@gmail.com> wrote: <snip>
This implies that “Chair/s” ought not to insist on their own preferences and to ignore the WG. I do not think that is what Meredith has in mind. But I am still seeking clarity.
However, based on his contributions on the mailing list, I would like Julf to be a co-chair. I think a co-chair should be active, present.
I agree, that is I would also like to see Julf as a co-chair. -- Roger Jorgensen | ROJO9-RIPE rogerj@gmail.com | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | roger@jorgensen.no
On 11 Jul 2016, at 16:35, Meredith Whittaker <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
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> wrote:
On 11 Jul 2016, at 16:35, Meredith Whittaker <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
Hi Jim, As I had previously mentioned, I was surprised to find that from the outset (as in, from before even the close of the WG session), there had been a decision made by more vocal members of the community. This had continued prior to even the anticipated close of nominations, excluding even the planned subsequent exchanges over issues and visions of the future of the WG. I have been impressed with the comments on Corinne in this regard, and would have rather she put in for nomination in retrospect. However, by now the space has narrowed, and I don't anticipate that any productive conversation will result from continuing or restarting. I have been suprised about the positions and modes of intracommunity interaction in this WG, which should otherwise run contrary to its cooperative mandate – in particular some of the exchanges during the meeting itself. My interest was simply in using the connections that I have accumulated through my professional work and travels in order to bridge the RIPE community with relevant and nascent partners that would otherwise be unaware of the opportunities to collaborate with its members. I would be happy to continue to support future WGs chairs in recommending partners, but am no longer interested in the chair position as a result of the politics involved. Julf has a history of contributions in the field of privacy that I was aware of even before I had the opportunity to meet him in the Amsterdam meeting. I am happy to see that of all people he was willing to step up, and I wish him the best in Coop WG. Best of luck in this transition. Cordially, Collin On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 3:06 PM, Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> wrote:
On 11 Jul 2016, at 16:35, Meredith Whittaker <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
participants (8)
-
Bastiaan Goslings -
Collin Anderson -
Gordon Lennox -
Jim Reid -
Johan Helsingius -
Meredith Whittaker -
Nick Hilliard -
Roger Jørgensen