Folks We need to have a documented procedure in place by the end of the next WG meeting for the affirmation and re-affirmation of WG chairs. I strongly feel that voting has no place in the running of RIPE working groups and also feel that inability to attend a RIPE meeting should not be a barrier to either becoming a chair or participating in the selection process. So I propose the following procedure. 1. A call for interested parties is made on the WG mailing list at yearly intervals 2. Interested parties have 2 weeks to make their interest known, again on the mailing list 3. The DB-WG chairs issue a call for discussion as per normal. WG members express their approval or otherwise of the presented candidates. 4. After two weeks the chairs declare consensus as they would do for a policy proposal I would propose a maximum number of 3 co-chairs. If at the end of the discussion phase there are more than 3 proposed co-chairs then a call is made for any of the candidates to withdraw. If there are still more than 3 candidates then names are put into a hat and the first three names drawn from the hat will take on the role of chairs for the next 12 months. Comments are welcome. Best regards Nigel
This proposal seems to me simple, transparent, fair, and brilliant. Nice one! Niall At Thu, 23 Oct 2014 21:42:30 +0100, Nigel Titley wrote:
Folks
We need to have a documented procedure in place by the end of the next WG meeting for the affirmation and re-affirmation of WG chairs.
I strongly feel that voting has no place in the running of RIPE working groups and also feel that inability to attend a RIPE meeting should not be a barrier to either becoming a chair or participating in the selection process. So I propose the following procedure.
1. A call for interested parties is made on the WG mailing list at yearly intervals 2. Interested parties have 2 weeks to make their interest known, again on the mailing list 3. The DB-WG chairs issue a call for discussion as per normal. WG members express their approval or otherwise of the presented candidates. 4. After two weeks the chairs declare consensus as they would do for a policy proposal
I would propose a maximum number of 3 co-chairs. If at the end of the discussion phase there are more than 3 proposed co-chairs then a call is made for any of the candidates to withdraw. If there are still more than 3 candidates then names are put into a hat and the first three names drawn from the hat will take on the role of chairs for the next 12 months.
Comments are welcome.
Best regards
Nigel
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 03:22:39PM +0100, Niall O'Reilly wrote:
This proposal seems to me simple, transparent, fair, and brilliant.
+1
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014, Piotr Strzyzewski wrote:
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 09:50:08AM +0100, Job Snijders wrote:
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 03:22:39PM +0100, Niall O'Reilly wrote:
This proposal seems to me simple, transparent, fair, and brilliant.
+1
+1 ;-)
Agreed. Who will bring a hat (if needed)? Cheers, Daniel _________________________________________________________________________________ Daniel Stolpe Tel: 08 - 688 11 81 stolpe@resilans.se Resilans AB Fax: 08 - 55 00 21 63 http://www.resilans.se/ Box 45 094 556741-1193 104 30 Stockholm
On 28/10/14 14:26, Daniel Stolpe wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014, Piotr Strzyzewski wrote:
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 09:50:08AM +0100, Job Snijders wrote:
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 03:22:39PM +0100, Niall O'Reilly wrote:
This proposal seems to me simple, transparent, fair, and brilliant.
+1
+1 ;-)
Agreed.
Who will bring a hat (if needed)?
Provision of the hat is left as an exercise for the reader.
Cheers,
Daniel
_________________________________________________________________________________
Daniel Stolpe Tel: 08 - 688 11 81 stolpe@resilans.se Resilans AB Fax: 08 - 55 00 21 63 http://www.resilans.se/ Box 45 094 556741-1193 104 30 Stockholm
participants (5)
-
Daniel Stolpe -
Job Snijders -
Niall O'Reilly -
Nigel Titley -
Piotr Strzyzewski