I agree with Fernando. WBR, Dmitry Menzulskiy, AKA DM3740-RIPE García Fernández, Fernando <Fernando.Garcia@ Кому tecnocom.es> "ipv6-wg@ripe.net" От: <ipv6-wg@ripe.net> ipv6-wg-admin@rip Копия e.net Тема Re: [ipv6-wg] Discussion period 04.02.2010 01:56 for co-chair selection until 20100208 After reading their own introduction and knowing both candidates from several RIPE meetings, I give my support to both of them to be co-chairs. I think and odd number is good as break in discussions. El 03/02/2010, a las 23:44, David Kessens escribió:
All,
The call for candidates for co-chairs of the IPv6 working group has resulted in two candidates. See below for their names and a link to the mailing list with their motivations and plans for the working group:
Shane Kerr http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/ipv6-wg/2010/msg00038.html
Marco Hogewoning http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/ipv6-wg/2010/msg00041.html
This brings us to the next step in our process:
1) The nominees are given a chance to determine whether they want to be considered or withdraw as they decided that there are other good candidates already available
2) The community may express opinions that could help the candidates to come to a decision on whether they want to be continued to be considered as a candidate - the community may consider appointing more than one co-chair in case of several good candidates
Let's take until the end of Mon Feb 8, 2010 in a timezone of your choice to determine an outcome for both 1) and 2).
I already have seen some discussion regarding point 2) and it leads me to believe that there is at least some support to appoint both candidates as co-chairs.
Before making such a determination though, I would like to see a bit more discussion/comments, especially from people who have not taken a position yet on this topic.
Basically, knowing our candidates, I would like to hear from you whether you prefer to appoint one or two co-chairs, and whether you have any preference for either candidate in case you believe one co-chair is enough.
Note that this period is for open discussion and that it is perfectly fine to do alternate proposals.
Our objective is to see if we can come to a consensus which allows us to avoid more complex ways of making a selection such as a vote.
After our discussion period is over, I will determine if there is enough basis to do a Last Call to confirm a selection decision as determined from our discussion phase, or whether we perhaps need a bit more time for discussion or that we will have to resort to organizing a vote.
I hope this helps,
David Kessens ---
-- Tecnocom Fernando García Fernández D.G. Integración de Redes y Sistemas Josefa Valcarcel, 26 Edificio Merrimack III Madrid - 28027 Tel. Fijo: 901900900 ext 40383 Fax: (+34) 914313240 Tel. Móvil: (+34) 649428591 E-mail: fernando.garcia@tecnocom.es http://www.tecnocom.es
