Some observations and opinions.
Hi! TL;DR;version: This is mostly quite OK, but a few clarifications are needed. I also have a few questions about left-out parts. I took a look at the proposed process, and there is much about it that I like. However, I think there are few areas where I think we need to make sure that there is consensus in the wider community. I want to lift the following passages "for inspection", if only to hear 200x of "yes, that's good!". ;-) COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED TEXT ----------------------------- The selection process should be lightweight and easy to implement but documented for clarity and accountability purposes. Most importantly, it should be determined by consensus within the RIPE community. Liman: for the mentioned accountability puprposes, it also need to be described in a _concise_ manner. It must be easy for and "auditor" to determine whether the process has been followed or not. The candidate pool The NomCom will solicit nominations from the community and publish a list of suitable candidates. Liman: I think we might want to add a few words to suppport the term "suitable", aiming to make a statement that the NomCom should strive to be non-discriminatory in producing its slate, and that variety in gender and other parameters is to be encouraged. However, that might already be sufficiently well stated in "general" documents for RIPE and its activities, and if so, I suggest adding text to the process that refers to these other documents (in order to avoid duplicating text). The selection process After a shortlist of potential candidates has been identified, the NomCom will hand it over to the WG Chair collective who will make the final decision. The WG Chair collective will actively gather feedback from the community about each candidate. Based on this feedback, the WG Chairs collective will select the best candidate for the job. Liman: This process worries me somewhat. The WG chairs are put in place for their qualities when it comes to leading work in the WGs, not because of their opinions and judgement wrt. selecting a RIPE chair. (No offence to the current WG Chairs.) These are distinctly different qualities. At a bare minimum we must make sure that these added WG Chair responsibilities are made very obvious to the people who select the WG Chairs, so that informed decisions can be made. Tenure The RIPE Chair will serve a five-year term ... Liman: this strikes me as a rather long tenure. It needs to be long enough for the chair to build up experience and become useful, and some projects that the Chair might initiate could take long time. OTOH, finding people who are willing and able to make the necessary committments for such a long tenure could possibly limit the pool of candidates to people with "large and wealthy" organisations behind them, who can afford to support this work for extended periods. In addition, if a selected Chair turns out to perform poorly, having to wait five years for an opportunity to replace him/her strikes me as a long time. ... with a two-term limit. Liman: I support this _strongly_! In my view the two-term limit is non-negotiable. I've seen how bad it can be when there is no term limit. No chair is so outstanding that this rule needs to be broken. However, the text is inconclusive about whether a candidate can be eligible for more two-term tenures after having stepped down for a year after a first (i.e., allowed to do a "comeback"). I usually say "yes, they can" when this is asked, but my only strong opinion is that it should be well-defined in the text. Vice Chair A new RIPE Vice Chair role will be created to support the RIPE Chair. This role will be filled according to the same process as that used for the RIPE Chair selection. There is no assumption that the Vice Chair would automatically become the RIPE Chair by default, but they would be free to put themselves forward (to be considered by the NomCom) for a vacant RIPE Chair position. This is all good, but needs to be augmented (probably elsewhere) with a clear description of the responsibilies of the Vice Chair vis-à-vis those of the Chair, so that both the candidates and the community understand what's expected. OTHER COMMENTS -------------- * The _process_ through which the WG Chairs finally arrive at their decision about a new chair is not defined here. Is it defined in other documents? Need it be at all, or will it just make the entier process unnecessarily heavy-weight? * Should there be a way to forcefully relieve a Chair of his/her duties? Are we sufficiently convinced that the NomCom is able to weed out bad candidates, so the probability that this will be needed is so low that we don't spend effort on it here and now? Is it defined elsewhere? Shall we deal with that problem if it hits us? The latter could work for me, as long as we all agree that that's the proposed way forward. * What happens if a non-neglectable group of members of the comomunity feel that the selection process hasn't been followed appropriately? RIPE Arbiters? External auditor? Further steps? Need we define at all? YOUR DIRECT QUESTIONS --------------------- Do you agree that a NomCom is a good way to identify a list of potential candidates? Liman: yes, this is a good idea. It's proven to work well in other communities (e.g., the IETF). Do you agree that a tenure of five years with a two-term limit is a suitable way to ensure continuity, stability and the opportunity for change in the RIPE community? Liman: not entirely. Limit is paramount, though! See my comment above. Do you agree that having a RIPE Vice Chair would be useful and that the Vice Chair should be selected following the same process as the RIPE Chair? Liman: yes, this is a good idea, but see my comment above. I now look forward to respectful, intense, and refreshing discussion. BRING IT ON! :-) :-) :-) Cheers, /Liman #---------------------------------------------------------------------- # Lars-Johan Liman, M.Sc. ! E-mail: liman@netnod.se # Senior Systems Specialist ! Tel: +46 8 - 562 860 12 # Netnod Internet Exchange, Stockholm ! http://www.netnod.se/ #----------------------------------------------------------------------
On 16 Jul 2018, at 17:02, Lars-Johan Liman <liman@netnod.se> wrote:
* Should there be a way to forcefully relieve a Chair of his/her duties?
That already exists. It's called Bijal. :-)
Are we sufficiently convinced that the NomCom is able to weed out bad candidates, so the probability that this will be needed is so low that we don't spend effort on it here and now? Is it defined elsewhere?
This seems to be unnecessary detail IMO. The NomCom shouldn't need to turn to a document to tell the difference between good and bad candidates. If they do, the wrong people are on the NomCom. Likewise, the WG Chairs Collective -- assuming they have a role in the selection process -- shouldn't need another document whch tells them whether the NomCom's recommendation is or isn't a good one. We should be able to trust those who will be assessing potential candidates to use their common sense and make rational decisions. Looking to a rule book or a prescriptive procedure would be a huge mistake. What do you do when something happens that isn't covered by the rules and procedures? And no, the answer to that rhetorical question is not to come up with a document which tries (and inevitably fails) to cover every possible scenario which might arise.
Shall we deal with that problem if it hits us? The latter could work for me, as long as we all agree that that's the proposed way forward.
IMO, we don't need to over-engineer things or over-think the problem, especially for events that are highly improbable. We might as well write up something to define the process to follow after the Lizard People have taken control of the WG Chairs Collective and appointed the Loch Ness Monster as our new leader. If we ever get to the situation where someone has to be forcibly removed, it should be sufficient for the community to say "we don't want you any more - go". And it will be done. BTW, I think that would also deal with your concern about having to endure some years with an ineffective Chair waiting for their term to expire.
liman@netnod.se:
* Should there be a way to forcefully relieve a Chair of his/her duties? Are we sufficiently convinced that the NomCom is able to weed out bad candidates, so the probability that this will be needed is so low that we don't spend effort on it here and now? Is it defined elsewhere?
This seems to be unnecessary detail IMO. The NomCom shouldn't need to turn to a document to tell the difference between good and bad candidates. If they do, the wrong people are on the NomCom. Likewise, the WG Chairs Collective -- assuming they have a role in the selection process -- shouldn't need another document whch tells them whether the NomCom's recommendation is or isn't a good one.
We should be able to trust those who will be assessing potential candidates to use their common sense and make rational decisions. Looking to a rule book or a prescriptive procedure would be a huge mistake. What do you do when something happens that isn't covered by the rules and procedures? And no, the answer to that rhetorical question is not to come up with a document which tries (and inevitably fails) to cover every possible scenario which might arise.
Umm, I think you're describing a different situation than the one I indended to address. I don't mean that there should be documenation in place to guide in the selection. I fully agree that common sense should be sufficient for the NomCom and WG Chairs procedures. I worry about the case where excellent common sense selected a perfect Chair, who over time (intoxicated by his/her unlimited powers ... ;-) turns into a less perfect Chair during his/her tenure?
Shall we deal with that problem if it hits us? The latter could work for me, as long as we all agree that that's the proposed way forward.
IMO, we don't need to over-engineer things or over-think the problem, especially for events that are highly improbable. We might as well write up something to define the process to follow after the Lizard People have taken control of the WG Chairs Collective and appointed the Loch Ness Monster as our new leader.
Well ... but yes. ;-)
If we ever get to the situation where someone has to be forcibly removed, it should be sufficient for the community to say "we don't want you any more - go". And it will be done.
I'm happy to have it that way, as long as it's not a surprise to anyone.
BTW, I think that would also deal with your concern about having to endure some years with an ineffective Chair waiting for their term to expire.
Agreed. It would. Cheers, /Liman
On 16 Jul 2018, at 21:27, Lars-Johan Liman <liman@netnod.se> wrote:
I worry about the case where excellent common sense selected a perfect Chair, who over time (intoxicated by his/her unlimited powers ... ;-) turns into a less perfect Chair during his/her tenure?
It's a reasonable concern. Though it should be simple to resolve if that situation arises: "We don't want you any more. Go now."
Hi, On Mon, 16 Jul 2018, Jim Reid wrote:
On 16 Jul 2018, at 21:27, Lars-Johan Liman <liman@netnod.se> wrote:
I worry about the case where excellent common sense selected a perfect Chair, who over time (intoxicated by his/her unlimited powers ... ;-) turns into a less perfect Chair during his/her tenure?
It's a reasonable concern. Though it should be simple to resolve if that situation arises: "We don't want you any more. Go now."
Have you seen that approach working anywhere...? Maybe: "Upon receiving a request to step down from <N> community members, the NomCom and(/or?) the WGCC decide if the Chair has to step down or not." What is a "community member"? I would probably define this as someone who has attended a RIPE meeting in the last <N> years, or with relevant participation in mailing lists, acknowledged by WG Chairs. Cheers, Carlos
On 16 Jul 2018, at 22:19, Carlos Friaças <cfriacas@fccn.pt> wrote:
It's a reasonable concern. Though it should be simple to resolve if that situation arises: "We don't want you any more. Go now."
Have you seen that approach working anywhere...?
Yes. We did this a few years ago to get rid of a WG co-chair who'd lost the confidence of their WG.
Maybe: "Upon receiving a request to step down from <N> community members, the NomCom and(/or?) the WGCC decide if the Chair has to step down or not."
Nope. I think the community has to take that decision by consensus. Nobody else. If the community is screaming for someone's head on a stick, asking the NomCom or WGCC to make a judgement about that would/should be a no-op. So there's nothing gained by introducing that redundant step or steps.
What is a "community member"? I would probably define this as someone who has attended a RIPE meeting in the last <N> years, or with relevant participation in mailing lists, acknowledged by WG Chairs.
That question is the start of an infinite rat-hole Carlos. Best stay out of it.
jim@rfc1035.com:
It's a reasonable concern. Though it should be simple to resolve if that situation arises: "We don't want you any more. Go now."
On 16 Jul 2018, at 22:19, Carlos Friaças <cfriacas@fccn.pt> wrote:
Have you seen that approach working anywhere...?
(<chuckle!> :-) Relevant question. ;-) )
Yes. We did this a few years ago to get rid of a WG co-chair who'd lost the confidence of their WG.
Without questioning the effectiveness of this, and only to understand the process used at the time: who were the "we" in "we did that ...".
Maybe: "Upon receiving a request to step down from <N> community members, the NomCom and(/or?) the WGCC decide if the Chair has to step down or not."
Nope. I think the community has to take that decision by consensus. Nobody else. If the community is screaming for someone's head on a stick, asking the NomCom or WGCC to make a judgement about that would/should be a no-op. So there's nothing gained by introducing that redundant step or steps.
WFM.
What is a "community member"?
I would probably define this as someone who has attended a RIPE meeting in the last <N> years, or with relevant participation in mailing lists, acknowledged by WG Chairs.
That question is the start of an infinite rat-hole Carlos. Best stay out of it.
Rathole: agreed. (... which is also one reason that trying to define democratic processes in the RIPE community is such a beast. It's hard to define democracy in a constituency, when the constituency itself isn't well defined. But: challenge accepted! ;-) ) All in all, especially with Jims assertion that there is "prior art", I'm willing to live with a "deal with it if it comes to that" solution, in order to avoid ratholing and to avoid having to create a Minotaurian labyrinth of legalese in the document. Cheers, /Liman PS. We could end the entire document with "act guided by intelligence and experience!", as fiction detective Nero Wolfe's handyman Archie Goodwin used to say. ;-) ;-) ;-)
On 17/07/18 15:57, Lars-Johan Liman wrote:
jim@rfc1035.com:
Yes. We did this a few years ago to get rid of a WG co-chair who'd lost the confidence of their WG.
Without questioning the effectiveness of this, and only to understand the process used at the time: who were the "we" in "we did that ...".
The Anti-abuse WG were faced with a co-chair who was patently unsuitable for the job and who was thrown out by the WG on a show of hands at the Rome RIPE meeting.
(... which is also one reason that trying to define democratic processes in the RIPE community is such a beast. It's hard to define democracy in a constituency, when the constituency itself isn't well defined. But: challenge accepted! ;-) )
All in all, especially with Jims assertion that there is "prior art", I'm willing to live with a "deal with it if it comes to that" solution, in order to avoid ratholing and to avoid having to create a Minotaurian labyrinth of legalese in the document.
Cheers, /Liman
PS. We could end the entire document with "act guided by intelligence and experience!", as fiction detective Nero Wolfe's handyman Archie Goodwin used to say. ;-) ;-) ;-)
And that is one of the most sensible suggestions I've heard in a long, long time. Nigel
On 17/07/18 16:01, Nigel Titley wrote:
On 17/07/18 15:57, Lars-Johan Liman wrote:
jim@rfc1035.com:
All in all, especially with Jims assertion that there is "prior art", I'm willing to live with a "deal with it if it comes to that" solution, in order to avoid ratholing and to avoid having to create a Minotaurian labyrinth of legalese in the document.
And this is brilliant... worthy of Jim himself
nigel@titley.com:
The Anti-abuse WG were faced with a co-chair who was patently unsuitable for the job and who was thrown out by the WG on a show of hands at the Rome RIPE meeting.
... inside the WG or in the plenary? (Still: I'm just curious of what was deemed appropriate at the time.) liman@netnod.se:
PS. We could end the entire document with "act guided by intelligence and experience!", as fiction detective Nero Wolfe's handyman Archie Goodwin used to say. ;-) ;-) ;-)
And that is one of the most sensible suggestions I've heard in a long, long time.
Happy to oblige. :-) Cheers, /Liman
On 17/07/18 16:56, Lars-Johan Liman wrote:
nigel@titley.com:
The Anti-abuse WG were faced with a co-chair who was patently unsuitable for the job and who was thrown out by the WG on a show of hands at the Rome RIPE meeting.
... inside the WG or in the plenary? (Still: I'm just curious of what was deemed appropriate at the time.)
In the working group. I would expect the throwing out of a RIPE Chair (assuming such a thing to happen) would take place in the plenary.
liman@netnod.se:
PS. We could end the entire document with "act guided by intelligence and experience!", as fiction detective Nero Wolfe's handyman Archie Goodwin used to say. ;-) ;-) ;-)
And that is one of the most sensible suggestions I've heard in a long, long time.
Happy to oblige. :-)
Cheers, /Liman
On 17/07/18 16:56, Lars-Johan Liman wrote:
... inside the WG or in the plenary? (Still: I'm just curious of what was deemed appropriate at the time.)
nigel@titley.com:
In the working group.
Thanks.
I would expect the throwing out of a RIPE Chair (assuming such a thing to happen) would take place in the plenary.
As would I. Cheers, /Liman
On 16 Jul 2018, at 17:02, Lars-Johan Liman <liman@netnod.se> wrote:
However, I think there are few areas where I think we need to make sure that there is consensus in the wider community.
I agree. The current proposal is very good and there's lots I like. Congrats to Anna and everyone else who helped put this together. There's one omission though. I'd like the decision of the WG Chairs Collective (WGCC) to get endorsed by the RIPE Community. ie NomCom recommends WGCC selects Community approves This would give us a reasonable set of checks and balances that allows the community to retain overall control without getting bogged down in the implementation detail of the selection machinery.
liman@netnod.se:
However, I think there are few areas where I think we need to make sure that there is consensus in the wider community.
jim@rfc1035.com:
I agree. The current proposal is very good and there's lots I like. Congrats to Anna and everyone else who helped put this together.
+1
There's one omission though. I'd like the decision of the WG Chairs Collective (WGCC) to get endorsed by the RIPE Community. ie
NomCom recommends WGCC selects Community approves
This would give us a reasonable set of checks and balances that allows the community to retain overall control without getting bogged down in the implementation detail of the selection machinery.
Good catch, Jim! +1 to that. Cheers, /Liman
-----Original Message----- From: ripe-chair-discuss <ripe-chair-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of Jim Reid Sent: Monday 16 July 2018 17:34 To: Lars-Johan Liman <liman@netnod.se> Cc: RIPE Chair Discussion List <ripe-chair-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [ripe-chair-discuss] Some observations and opinions.
On 16 Jul 2018, at 17:02, Lars-Johan Liman <liman@netnod.se> wrote:
However, I think there are few areas where I think we need to make sure that there is consensus in the wider community.
I agree. The current proposal is very good and there's lots I like. Congrats to Anna and everyone else who helped put this together.
+1
There's one omission though. I'd like the decision of the WG Chairs Collective (WGCC) to get endorsed by the RIPE Community. ie
NomCom recommends WGCC selects Community approves
This would give us a reasonable set of checks and balances that allows the community to retain overall control without getting bogged down in the implementation detail of the selection machinery.
I think, as there was on the only hand over, there must be acclamation from the community. The Plenary session of a RIPE meeting seems like the obvious place for this, given easy remote participation is possible. However... I want to make a comment about the removal. Yes, the AA-WG did remove a Co-Chair, but it was such a complicated and torturous process that it moved us towards putting procedures in place for same. I believe, as the person on stage at the time, I can speak with some authority about how unpleasant it was and how I would prefer to never do it again. Now, I do not believe that we need a complicated procedure here, but I think I would like to see something like: "If the Chair has lost the faith and trust of the community, then the community/RIPE meeting Plenary/something similar can ask them to step down. The Vice-Chair would then assume the Chairs duties while a new selection procedure takes place." I think it is good governance to write this down, and it chimes with what has been described here, without getting into any procedural weeds. Thanks, Brian
participants (5)
-
Brian Nisbet -
Carlos Friaças -
Jim Reid -
Lars-Johan Liman -
Nigel Titley