The NomCom Requests your Support
Dear Friends and Colleagues of the RIPE community, If your feeling is something like "Oh no, not another long message from the NomCom! I wish they would just get on with it." you do not need to read further. It would certainly help us if you explicitly told us briefly to "just get on with it". Thanks Daniel ------------------ From: Daniel Karrenberg - Chair of the RIPE 2020 Nominating Committee. To: Christian Kaufmann - Chair of the RIPE NCC Executive Board, Franziska Lichtblau - Chair of the RIPE Program Committee, Hans Petter Holen - RIPE Chair ad-interim & Chair of the RIPE WG Chairs, RIPE Community. Christian, Franziska, Hans Petter, Friends and Colleagues, The process to select two persons to succeed Hans Petter Holen as RIPE chair has been under way since September 2019. The NomCom has worked diligently to run the process that has been agreed by the community and codified in ripe-727 and ripe-728. We have called for nominees, canvassed when we had only one nomination and received four further nominations. We have dealt with the unforeseen withdrawal of Hans Petter. We have recognised the increased urgency that Hans Petter's resignation as RIPE Chair puts on the process by slightly tightening our time line without compromising on running an exemplary process. We have held three formal and two informal meetings, talked to the nominees by teleconference and received substantial input about all nominees from a diverse set of people in the community. We have kept the community informed by announcements on the RIPE mailing list, by providing a dedicated blog, by publishing complementary material on RIPE Labs, by reporting to the community plenary at RIPE80 and by talking about our work whenever the opportunity presented itself. Last week, during RIPE80, there were some calls from within the RIPE community to stop this process and start over. There also have been suggestions to issue another call for nominations and then continue as before. Since our mandate does not extend beyond executing the process along an agreed time line we are extremely reluctant to deviate from this unless we observe a clear and strong consensus in the community to deviate for the sake of pragmatism. We have discussed this extensively and decided against changing the planned time line because we see no such consensus. We also considered the consequences: Deviating from the plan at this time would put Hans Petter into the difficult position of having to work a new and demanding job next to filling the RIPE Chair ad interim role. This is too much to ask of anyone even without taking into account the recent discussion on ripe-chair-discuss. Hans Petter has told us that he accepted the ad-interim role on the assumption that we will finish our work on time and that he will likely have to resign if we take significantly longer than planned. Unfortunately during the RIPE 80 community plenary there has been no discussion that provides further guidance to us. It is difficult for us to assess whether this was due to the virtual format of the meeting, widespread agreement with what we have done so far or any other reason. We certainly expected those who had called for changes to the process earlier during the week to speak up and a discussion to take place that would provide further guidance for us. This has not happened. We have therefore decided to briefly pause our process and not to start candidate selection after RIPE 80 as originally planned. We have continued with preparations but have not started discussing the nominees among ourselves yet. We ask the RIPE NCC Board, the PC, the WG Chairs and the community at large to give us timely guidance on how to proceed. The question before us is whether we still have the support of the community to continue with the agreed process and time line or whether there is consensus in the community that we should do something different. We need this guidance now so that we can keep the delay in the time line as short as possible. We also ask the community as a whole to support us once we do proceed. Daniel Karrenberg, Chair, RIPE 2020 Nominating Committee
Daniel, NomCom, All, Please receive my warm and full support for continuing your work according to the original time line. It is important that we reach the end of this process, without haste, but also without delay. The time line set forth took that into consideration. Please proceed. And thank you for all your efforts to drive this process along the guide rails that the community has put up. And for your time. It's all much appreciated. Best regards, /Lars-Johan 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/ #---------------------------------------------------------------------- ripe-list@ripe.net 2020-05-25 16:44 [+0200]:
Dear Friends and Colleagues of the RIPE community,
If your feeling is something like "Oh no, not another long message from the NomCom! I wish they would just get on with it." you do not need to read further. It would certainly help us if you explicitly told us briefly to "just get on with it".
Thanks
Daniel
------------------
From:
Daniel Karrenberg - Chair of the RIPE 2020 Nominating Committee.
To:
Christian Kaufmann - Chair of the RIPE NCC Executive Board,
Franziska Lichtblau - Chair of the RIPE Program Committee,
Hans Petter Holen - RIPE Chair ad-interim & Chair of the RIPE WG Chairs,
RIPE Community.
Christian, Franziska, Hans Petter, Friends and Colleagues,
The process to select two persons to succeed Hans Petter Holen as RIPE chair has been under way since September 2019. The NomCom has worked diligently to run the process that has been agreed by the community and codified in ripe-727 and ripe-728. We have called for nominees, canvassed when we had only one nomination and received four further nominations. We have dealt with the unforeseen withdrawal of Hans Petter. We have recognised the increased urgency that Hans Petter's resignation as RIPE Chair puts on the process by slightly tightening our time line without compromising on running an exemplary process. We have held three formal and two informal meetings, talked to the nominees by teleconference and received substantial input about all nominees from a diverse set of people in the community. We have kept the community informed by announcements on the RIPE mailing list, by providing a dedicated blog, by publishing complementary material on RIPE Labs, by reporting to the community plenary at RIPE80 and by talking about our work whenever the opportunity presented itself.
Last week, during RIPE80, there were some calls from within the RIPE community to stop this process and start over. There also have been suggestions to issue another call for nominations and then continue as before. Since our mandate does not extend beyond executing the process along an agreed time line we are extremely reluctant to deviate from this unless we observe a clear and strong consensus in the community to deviate for the sake of pragmatism.
We have discussed this extensively and decided against changing the planned time line because we see no such consensus. We also considered the consequences: Deviating from the plan at this time would put Hans Petter into the difficult position of having to work a new and demanding job next to filling the RIPE Chair ad interim role. This is too much to ask of anyone even without taking into account the recent discussion on ripe-chair-discuss. Hans Petter has told us that he accepted the ad-interim role on the assumption that we will finish our work on time and that he will likely have to resign if we take significantly longer than planned.
Unfortunately during the RIPE 80 community plenary there has been no discussion that provides further guidance to us. It is difficult for us to assess whether this was due to the virtual format of the meeting, widespread agreement with what we have done so far or any other reason. We certainly expected those who had called for changes to the process earlier during the week to speak up and a discussion to take place that would provide further guidance for us. This has not happened.
We have therefore decided to briefly pause our process and not to start candidate selection after RIPE 80 as originally planned. We have continued with preparations but have not started discussing the nominees among ourselves yet.
We ask the RIPE NCC Board, the PC, the WG Chairs and the community at large to give us timely guidance on how to proceed. The question before us is whether we still have the support of the community to continue with the agreed process and time line or whether there is consensus in the community that we should do something different. We need this guidance now so that we can keep the delay in the time line as short as possible.
We also ask the community as a whole to support us once we do proceed.
Daniel Karrenberg, Chair, RIPE 2020 Nominating Committee
Please receive my warm and full support for continuing your work according to the original time line. It is important that we reach the end of this process, without haste, but also without delay. The time line set forth took that into consideration.
Please proceed.
And thank you for all your efforts to drive this process along the guide rails that the community has put up. And for your time. It's all much appreciated.
+1 i, for one, trust you and the process to do a right thing. and thank you. randy
Daniel, The concerns that were raised on the ripe-chair-discuss mailing list haven't been addressed. Rather than prompting for a mandate to "just get on with it", these issues need to be addressed. Nick Daniel Karrenberg via ripe-list wrote on 25/05/2020 15:44:
Dear Friends and Colleagues of the RIPE community,
If your feeling is something like "Oh no, not another long message from the NomCom! I wish they would just get on with it." you do not need to read further. It would certainly help us if you explicitly told us briefly to "just get on with it".
Thanks
Daniel
------------------
From:
Daniel Karrenberg - Chair of the RIPE 2020 Nominating Committee.
To:
Christian Kaufmann - Chair of the RIPE NCC Executive Board,
Franziska Lichtblau - Chair of the RIPE Program Committee,
Hans Petter Holen - RIPE Chair ad-interim & Chair of the RIPE WG Chairs,
RIPE Community.
Christian, Franziska, Hans Petter, Friends and Colleagues,
The process to select two persons to succeed Hans Petter Holen as RIPE chair has been under way since September 2019. The NomCom has worked diligently to run the process that has been agreed by the community and codified in ripe-727 and ripe-728. We have called for nominees, canvassed when we had only one nomination and received four further nominations. We have dealt with the unforeseen withdrawal of Hans Petter. We have recognised the increased urgency that Hans Petter's resignation as RIPE Chair puts on the process by slightly tightening our time line without compromising on running an exemplary process. We have held three formal and two informal meetings, talked to the nominees by teleconference and received substantial input about all nominees from a diverse set of people in the community. We have kept the community informed by announcements on the RIPE mailing list, by providing a dedicated blog, by publishing complementary material on RIPE Labs, by reporting to the community plenary at RIPE80 and by talking about our work whenever the opportunity presented itself.
Last week, during RIPE80, there were some calls from within the RIPE community to stop this process and start over. There also have been suggestions to issue another call for nominations and then continue as before. Since our mandate does not extend beyond executing the process along an agreed time line we are extremely reluctant to deviate from this unless we observe a clear and strong consensus in the community to deviate for the sake of pragmatism.
We have discussed this extensively and decided against changing the planned time line because we see no such consensus. We also considered the consequences: Deviating from the plan at this time would put Hans Petter into the difficult position of having to work a new and demanding job next to filling the RIPE Chair ad interim role. This is too much to ask of anyone even without taking into account the recent discussion on ripe-chair-discuss. Hans Petter has told us that he accepted the ad-interim role on the assumption that we will finish our work on time and that he will likely have to resign if we take significantly longer than planned.
Unfortunately during the RIPE 80 community plenary there has been no discussion that provides further guidance to us. It is difficult for us to assess whether this was due to the virtual format of the meeting, widespread agreement with what we have done so far or any other reason. We certainly expected those who had called for changes to the process earlier during the week to speak up and a discussion to take place that would provide further guidance for us. This has not happened.
We have therefore decided to briefly pause our process and not to start candidate selection after RIPE 80 as originally planned. We have continued with preparations but have not started discussing the nominees among ourselves yet.
We ask the RIPE NCC Board, the PC, the WG Chairs and the community at large to give us timely guidance on how to proceed. The question before us is whether we still have the support of the community to continue with the agreed process and time line or whether there is consensus in the community that we should do something different. We need this guidance now so that we can keep the delay in the time line as short as possible.
We also ask the community as a whole to support us once we do proceed.
Daniel Karrenberg, Chair, RIPE 2020 Nominating Committee
On 25 May 2020, at 23:42, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote:
The concerns that were raised on the ripe-chair-discuss mailing list haven't been addressed.
Rather than prompting for a mandate to "just get on with it", these issues need to be addressed.
With all due respect Nick, no they don’t. The concerns you and others have raised have been heard. They don’t have to be addressed. They’ve been accommodated. It’s been explained why it’s both impractical and unreasonable to address those concerns at this time. Or to pause the current process until such time as they could be addressed. Those who disagree with that assessment are welcome to raise their concerns with the NomCom. After all, the people raising these concerns have said that they are not questioning the integrity or judgement of either the Nomcom or the candidates. So in that case, the Nomcom and candidiates should be left to get on with the job they *volunteered* to perform. Or are they not to be trusted after all? If the Nomcom can be trusted, raise these recent concerns through the appropriate channel and let the Nomcom decide what to do about those concerns since we can be sure they’ll do The Right Thing. It’s that simple. If the Nomcom can’t be trusted, we have to blow up the appointment process -- good luck getting consensus on a new one -- and then be forced to make even uglier decisions about how to appoint a temporary replacement who may well be left dangling for years. FWIW it took 4 years to get consensus on the current selection process and start implementing it. Does anyone *really* want to start all that again? Remember that the current process is not cast in stone. It can (and very probably will) get revised in light of the lessons learned from the first time it’s been tried. That will be the proper time and place to address these recent concerns. Please note these were raised long after the train had left the station. We’d reached consensus on how Hans Petter’s successor was to be appointed and put that process into effect. Unwinding it now is not a good look at all. IIUC RIPE uses the RFC7282 definition of consensus. That means we have rough consensus that the current appointment process with the current NomCom and current pool of candidates can go ahead as-is. To quote from RFC7282: 3. Rough consensus is achieved when all issues are addressed, but not necessarily accommodated ... Often, a working group will encounter an objection where everyone understands the issue and acknowledges that it is a real shortcoming in the proposed solution, but the vast majority of the working group believes that accommodating the objection is not worth the tradeoff of fixing the problem. Though for us s/working group/RIPE community/ Oh and in case there’s any doubt, I say to the Nomcom - just get on with it.
Hi, Jim On 26/05/2020, 00:30, Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> wrote:
On 25 May 2020, at 23:42, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote: The concerns that were raised on the ripe-chair-discuss mailing list haven't been addressed. Rather than prompting for a mandate to "just get on with it", these issues need to be addressed. With all due respect Nick, no they don’t. The concerns you and others have raised have been heard. They don’t have to be addressed.
Jim, you then go on to quote directly from RFC7282 which says very clearly that the concerns DO need to be addressed.
To quote from RFC7282: 3. Rough consensus is achieved when all issues are addressed, but not necessarily accommodated
Nick has made some very valid points on the ripe-chair-discuss mailing list, in message https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ripe-chair-discuss/2020-May/000271.h.... After just three days of discussion, Daniel shut down the conversation in message https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ripe-chair-discuss/2020-May/000347.h... saying the Nomcom needed to 'take a break for a few days'. Without responding to any of the concerns - or 'addressing' them to use your choice of word, or even reference to them, Daniel then opens a new thread on an entirely different mailing list asking for wide community support to proceed unchanged. This is not consensus building. This is not suitable methodology from the Chair. This is disingenuous. I would ask those wishing to contribute to this thread to read the ripe-chair-discuss thread to familiarise themselves with the complaint. The pool of talent in the RIPE community is sufficiently large enough to mean that the independence of the NCC and Community can be preserved through having different people contribute to the work of our committees, working-groups, and leadership teams; to say or to behave that this is not the case demonstrates contempt. Andy
Hi, On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 05:59:48AM +0000, Andy Davidson wrote:
This is not consensus building. This is not suitable methodology from the Chair. This is disingenuous.
The NomCom has been put in a very difficult situation here. We have a document that tells us what to do. We do that. In the middle of the road, concerns are voiced that the document is not good enough - which might be a valid statement or not, but how should it affect the current process, given the simultaneously expressed support for all the persons involved?
I would ask those wishing to contribute to this thread to read the ripe-chair-discuss thread to familiarise themselves with the complaint.
The pool of talent in the RIPE community is sufficiently large enough to mean that the independence of the NCC and Community can be preserved through having different people contribute to the work of our committees, working-groups, and leadership teams; to say or to behave that this is not the case demonstrates contempt.
We do have a good set of very talented and widely recognized nominees. Would it be good to have a wider selection? Maybe. Have all these other people of talent come forward and volunteered? No. What shall we do? Gert Doering -- member of the NomCom. -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Hi, While understanding the desire to proceed.. I would like to see a couple point 'sorted' before the NomCom proceeds. 1) The numeration of the RIPE Chair position wasn't clear to all, that this was going to happen.. This will have an impact on the pool for suitable nominees .. As this became clear after the Call for Nominees closed. I think that it is something to re-visit. 2) Having a job at the NCC and stating in the bio, that it is considered a leave of absence for the employer RIPE NCC, is not something that I would expect. If someone is taking the role for the RIPE Chair and that is a paid position, I would expect that he/she would quit the job and yes, it would require a leap of faith to start in a new role. But stating upfront that there is a backdoor into the current role / management position .. that is not how I see that this works. It is not smart to have a direct financial relation to the RIPE NCC for the RIPE Chair position. With any person that is going to be RIPE Chair .. I would suggest doing a contract with a Payroll Agency for a 10yr contract (as that would span multiple periods of EB's and at least 2 RIPE Chair periods each of 5 yr.. ) ... The new RIPE Chair and the current or future RIPE NCC MD should not have any ( financial ) leverage between each other and the RIPE Chair MUST be independent and that can be this way. 3) With the current 4 nominees .. and the risk of 1 that might drop out due to current discussions .. it would leave the NomCom with only 3 nominees left, for 2 positions.. I don't think that the NomCom can or should proceed. If the NomCom decides to proceed, I would strongly suggest to re-open the Call for Nominees .. restart there ... after all we have learned in regular PDP .. sometimes a v2 or v3 is required and even if someone spots something just in the Impact Analyses, it doesn't mean that you can ignore and proceed to the Last call .. you have to revise, with new insight .. and restart. Sometimes to the start and other times with just some minor tweaks to address the concerns.. I have faith in the NomCom as being chaired ... I have faith in the NomCom that it is going to be impartial .. I know most, if not all of the members on the NomCom. And I don't think that blowing up the NomCom is required or asked, however we have to re-visit a couple things before we proceed. So for now, until this is properly addressed .. I would suggest to hold, review and restart. The other option would be that we wait a month, by that time HPH steps down as Interim RIPE Chair as announced, that the WG Chair Collective appoint an interim-interim RIPE Chair and let him/her decide on this. And I hope that we don't Runout-runout of Interim Interim RIPE Chairs before we complete this ... __ Regards, Erik Bais
On 26 May 2020, at 10:10, Erik Bais <ebais@a2b-internet.com> wrote:
I hope that we don't Runout-runout of Interim Interim RIPE Chairs before we complete this
Those who are raising concerns need to think *very* carefully about the consequences of introducing these (unnecessary IMO) additional risks and uncertainties at this late stage. A runout-runout of interim-interim RIPE Chairmen is just the tip of the iceberg. Here are some of the others: 1) Derailing a community-agreed process *while it is under way* because a few people don't like the initial outcomes sets a very ugly and dangerous precedent. More so when they said nothing at the time when each of those agreed milestones had been reached and there were opportunities to comment on them. 2) Appointing another interim RIPE Chairman is the responsibility of the WG Chairs, a group that is dysfunctional at taking decisions. How long will it take them to make their mind up? Assuming they can find people who would be willing and capable of performing in that role. Which is yet another big risk/uncertainty. 3) Knowing the prevailing circumstances, who would choose to step into this mess and serve as interim RIPE Chairman? And imagine the conversations with their employer or family: “I’m going to take an unpaid full-time job for an unknown length of time while RIPE bickers. Hope that’s OK with you.”. 4) Pausing (or whatever) the current process effectively tells the Nomcom they don’t have the community’s confidence. If I was on the Nomcom, I’d quit if that happened. I wouldn’t want to be considered as a replacement for anyone who did quit either. What do we do when good people walk away from the Nomcom and/or decline to replace those who did? 5) Pausing (or whatever) the current process effectively tells the current candidates they don’t have the community’s confidence. One way or another they’re being told they’re not “good enough”. If I was one of them, I’d withdraw. What do we do when excellent candidates walk away? What happens if nobody else comes forward? Remember they’ll have seen how dreadfully the current candidates have been treated. Who’d choose to go through that? 6) What happens if more candidates do come forward during this pause and they turn out to be unsuitable too? [For some definition of unsuitable.] Do we pause again (and again) until we come up with a mix of candidates that gets near-unanimous approval? And what do we do in the interim? Are these risks and uncertainties worth it? I don’t think so. Gert summed up the situation very well:
We do have a good set of very talented and widely recognized nominees.
Would it be good to have a wider selection? Maybe.
Have all these other people of talent come forward and volunteered? No.
What shall we do?
Hi Jim!
On 26 May 2020, at 11:24, Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> wrote:
And imagine the conversations with their employer or family: “I’m going to take an unpaid full-time job for an unknown length of time while RIPE bickers. Hope that’s OK with you.”.
I thought the RIPE NCC have said they would fund a (interim-) chair of RIPE? Best regards, - kurtis -
On 26 May 2020, at 15:40, Kurtis Lindqvist <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se> wrote:
And imagine the conversations with their employer or family: “I’m going to take an unpaid full-time job for an unknown length of time while RIPE bickers. Hope that’s OK with you.”.
I thought the RIPE NCC have said they would fund a (interim-) chair of RIPE?
I don’t know or care Kurtis. I’m not an NCC member. Not that it matters. Most of the recent concerns that have been raised are about the perceived closeness of the Nomcom and candidates to the NCC, possible conflicts of interest, etc, etc. I doubt these are going to be eased if the Chairman of RIPE effectively becomes an employee of the FCC. Whether the Chairman gets paid or not is behind the point I was trying to make. So let me rephrase that earlier comment: "I’m going to take leave of absence for a full-time job as RIPE Chairman for an unknown length of time while RIPE bickers. Hope that’s OK with you.”. How do you think the LINX Board would react if you suggested something like that? I know how my employer - me! - would react.
On 26 May 2020, at 16:00, Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> wrote:
if the Chairman of RIPE effectively becomes an employee of the FCC.
Damn you autocorrect! s/FCC/NCC/
On Tue, 26-05-2020 11h 10min, Erik Bais <ebais@a2b-internet.com> wrote:> 2) Having a job at the NCC and stating in the bio, that it is considered a leave of absence for the employer RIPE NCC, is not something that I would expect. If someone is taking the role for the RIPE Chair and that is a paid position, I would expect that he/she would quit the job and yes, it would require a leap of faith to start in a new role. But stating upfront that there is a backdoor into the current role / management position .. that is not how I see that this works. It is not smart to have a direct financial relation to the RIPE NCC for the RIPE Chair position.
This should be a major concern. There should be no such dependency between the RIPE Chair and RIPE NCC. The whole structure has been setup in such a way to ensure leverage between the RIPE NCC and the RIPE Chair is minimised, introducing this would bring back leverage in full force. So I would like to see a statement from the nomcom if they perceive this to be a potential issue. Also, are both the chair and the vice-chair paid positions? If not, could a RIPE NCC employee become RIPE Vice-Chair and still get paid (and work) for RIPE NCC? -- IDGARA | Alex de Joode | alex@idgara.nl | +31651108221 | Skype:adejoode
On 26 May 2020, at 12:53, Alex de Joode wrote:
So I would like to see a statement from the nomcom if they perceive this to be a potential issue.
From the NomCom minutes, meeting of April 1st (no joke!) Note that this is before all the input on ripe-chair-discuss. “3.1 Conflicts Of Interest of Nominees The committee considered discussions in the RIPE community about whether it was appropriate for individuals simultaneously to hold one of the RIPE chair roles and also be a RIPE NCC employee. The context of those particular discussions was the announcement that Hans Petter Holen, the outgoing RIPE chair, had accepted employment at the RIPE NCC. The committee will also consider the same kinds of questions in the context of nominees who are currently RIPE NCC employees. The committee agreed to treat this in the context of considering conflicts of interest of nominees in general and to defer this discussion until after meeting the nominees and hearing their declared conflicts and how they propose to address these.” https://blog.ripe-nomcom.org/2nd-meeting-of-the-ripe-2020-nomcom/ So yes we are aware of the potential ‘issue’. We are also aware of the input to us. We have responded to it when it happened and we will take it into account in our further work. The RIPE NCC board has told us that they are also aware and that they will be seeking solutions according to their mandate and community input. As far as I can see the RIPE NCC board is doing everything they can to avoid having influence on the RIPE Chair selection process beyond playing their role in the agreed process. As to your other questions: The NomCom has agreed to not get ahead of itself and solutioneer ad lib, possibly in areas outside our mandate. We will first concentrate on our mandate to find the best people for the roles according to the agreed process. We will tackle the unforeseen related issues second and only insofar as we have a mandate for it. We may decide to provide suggestions to those with a mandate such as the RIPE NCC board and the community at large after that. And finally we will make a report that the community can use to review the process. Daniel NomCom Chair
Hi Andy, all, Responding to Gert's answer that I fully endorse. On 26/05/2020 08:20, Gert Doering wrote:
On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 05:59:48AM +0000, Andy Davidson wrote:
This is not consensus building. This is not suitable methodology from the Chair. This is disingenuous.
The NomCom has been put in a very difficult situation here.
I agree with Gert. I would like to say that the NomCom Chair and the NomCom members discussed the comments at length together and that the email was sent as the NomCom, not as the NomCom Chair. Kind regards, Benno Overeinder -- member of the NomCom -- Benno J. Overeinder NLnet Labs https://www.nlnetlabs.nl/
I also want to repeat that it was email from Nomcom. Dima On 5/26/20 1:00 PM, Benno Overeinder wrote:
Hi Andy, all,
Responding to Gert's answer that I fully endorse.
On 26/05/2020 08:20, Gert Doering wrote:
On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 05:59:48AM +0000, Andy Davidson wrote:
This is not consensus building. This is not suitable methodology from the Chair. This is disingenuous. The NomCom has been put in a very difficult situation here. I agree with Gert.
I would like to say that the NomCom Chair and the NomCom members discussed the comments at length together and that the email was sent as the NomCom, not as the NomCom Chair.
Kind regards,
Benno Overeinder -- member of the NomCom
Gert Doering wrote on 26/05/2020 07:20:
We have a document that tells us what to do. We do that.
In the middle of the road, concerns are voiced that the document is not good enough - which might be a valid statement or not, but how should it affect the current process, given the simultaneously expressed support for all the persons involved?
The problem is not with the process, or the document, and it is particularly not with the people involved. The problem is with the roles that some of the people involved in this process hold within the RIPE NCC, and the relationship between those roles. Specifically, the chair of the nomcom and one of the RIPE chair candidates are NCC employees who report to the RIPE NCC MD, who is also ad-interim RIPE Chair. We have a bottom-line expectation that the RIPE Chair is independent of the RIPE NCC, and this position has been expressed unequivocally by the nomcom. It is not tenable to hold this expectation and at the same time for the NomCom to be chaired by a RIPE NCC staff member, while one of the candidates is also a RIPE NCC staff member, and where the current RIPE Chair is the RIPE NCC MD. This situation was further complicated mid-process by the announcement that the RIPE Chair position would be funded by the RIPE NCC, thereby raising further questions about the ability of the RIPE Chair to maintain independence from the RIPE NCC. The timing of this announcement was also difficult, as it happened after the call for candidates was ended: this has likely cut out other people who may have been interested in the position but who could not afford to apply. The reality is that most people are simply not in a position to work on a free-gratis basis for several years at a time. If the NomCom follows through on the current trajectory, it will be difficult to defend against claims that the selection process and the resulting candidate were free from undue influence from the RIPE NCC. This will compromise the process, and the RIPE chair, and will raise questions about the RIPE Community's ability to govern itself. This would be unfortunate and unnecessary. As Erik Bais noted in a separate email, no-one is suggesting blowing up or restarting the nomcom or the process. I think generally people recognise and are sympathetic to the fact that this is a difficult, awkward and delicate situation for all, and particularly for the candidates. And also that it's a situation where external factors played a substantial part in forming. For the moment, the process needs to be paused. To move it forward: 1. if the positions of RIPE Chair and vice-Chair are to be paid, then the details of this need to be clarified, and if possible finalised, as soon as possible. Given that this is a fundamental shift in the position spec, there will either need to be a new call for applicants or a pretty clear justification about why this is not possible. As Gordon Lennox noted, sunk costs are not an adequate explanation. 2. The nomcom needs to consider whether people who are currently or have recently been working at the RIPE NCC at any level should be subject to timeout / grace periods to protect both the candidates and the position from suggestions of revolving doors. There's plenty of precedent and experience in this area of governance. 3. the RIPE community needs to understand whether the NomCom can continue to assert that the process is independent of the RIPE NCC given not just the individual impact of the issues raised, but also the cumulative impact of these issues. These are not easy questions to answer, or to remedy when they've been answered. Nick
Nick, You believe the process needs to be paused. I do not agree. As I and others have said yes, there are things that need to be addressed and unquestionably improved, but that was always going to happen. And I acknowledge that it will be five years before there is another run of the process, so it's not like there won't be a long period where the decisions made are in effect, but it is still the first time. And honestly, you say there isn't a problem with the process or document or people, then go on to say there is a problem with at least one, if not more, of them. I think it's clear that, in future the involvement of NCC staff in the NomCom (other than agreed secretariat roles) should be severely limited (ie I think Daniel should occupy the non-voting ex-Chair position for the next run, and then that's it) and there should be consideration given to limits or grace periods or the like where someone has been working for the NCC or on the Exec Board. In regards to payment, perhaps the simplest option there is to make it clear that at least for this 5 year period there will be no remuneration and that, if it is absolutely decided to go down this route, it's taken as a priority to figure out those details long before a new call for nominations goes out? I mean, I'm not a huge fan of the idea, in no small part for some of the governance & separation issues that have been discussed, but now is not the time for that debate. Are there improvements that can be made? Yes, I haven't seen anyone disagree with that, but I stand by the statement I made elsewhere in this thread. I don't think the issues raised are big enough to pause this or to need to change things. I'm not being glib here, I've thought a lot about the points you and others have raised, but this specific part of the RIPE Community is happy that the process is suitable independent of the NCC. I am very much trying to avoid falling into the sunk cost fallacy, albeit with any mental exercise it is always hardest to audit oneself. However we worked on the process, everyone is agreeing the candidates are a good bunch, and I have a genuine fear that if we do attempt to repair the plane mid-flight, then we'll set a precedent of being able to reach this point again and find something else to say "No" to, which should be fixed in the normal iteration cycle. There is an element of risk in continuing, just as there was in the first chair appointment, in the succession, in all of this. But both the safeguards (the recall etc) that are in the process and a greatly heightened awareness in the Community of the role of the Chair persuade me that while things could be better that they are not bad enough to need to take the pauses or steps you outline. I continue to support the NomCom and the continuation of this process to a speedy conclusion. Brian Brian Nisbet Service Operations Manager HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland +35316609040 brian.nisbet@heanet.ie www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270 ________________________________ From: ripe-list <ripe-list-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> Sent: Wednesday 27 May 2020 12:55 To: Gert Doering <gert@space.net> Cc: Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com>; Andy Davidson <andy@nosignal.org>; RIPE list <ripe-list@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [ripe-list] The NomCom Requests your Support CAUTION[External]: This email originated from outside of the organisation. Do not click on links or open the attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe. Gert Doering wrote on 26/05/2020 07:20:
We have a document that tells us what to do. We do that.
In the middle of the road, concerns are voiced that the document is not good enough - which might be a valid statement or not, but how should it affect the current process, given the simultaneously expressed support for all the persons involved?
The problem is not with the process, or the document, and it is particularly not with the people involved. The problem is with the roles that some of the people involved in this process hold within the RIPE NCC, and the relationship between those roles. Specifically, the chair of the nomcom and one of the RIPE chair candidates are NCC employees who report to the RIPE NCC MD, who is also ad-interim RIPE Chair. We have a bottom-line expectation that the RIPE Chair is independent of the RIPE NCC, and this position has been expressed unequivocally by the nomcom. It is not tenable to hold this expectation and at the same time for the NomCom to be chaired by a RIPE NCC staff member, while one of the candidates is also a RIPE NCC staff member, and where the current RIPE Chair is the RIPE NCC MD. This situation was further complicated mid-process by the announcement that the RIPE Chair position would be funded by the RIPE NCC, thereby raising further questions about the ability of the RIPE Chair to maintain independence from the RIPE NCC. The timing of this announcement was also difficult, as it happened after the call for candidates was ended: this has likely cut out other people who may have been interested in the position but who could not afford to apply. The reality is that most people are simply not in a position to work on a free-gratis basis for several years at a time. If the NomCom follows through on the current trajectory, it will be difficult to defend against claims that the selection process and the resulting candidate were free from undue influence from the RIPE NCC. This will compromise the process, and the RIPE chair, and will raise questions about the RIPE Community's ability to govern itself. This would be unfortunate and unnecessary. As Erik Bais noted in a separate email, no-one is suggesting blowing up or restarting the nomcom or the process. I think generally people recognise and are sympathetic to the fact that this is a difficult, awkward and delicate situation for all, and particularly for the candidates. And also that it's a situation where external factors played a substantial part in forming. For the moment, the process needs to be paused. To move it forward: 1. if the positions of RIPE Chair and vice-Chair are to be paid, then the details of this need to be clarified, and if possible finalised, as soon as possible. Given that this is a fundamental shift in the position spec, there will either need to be a new call for applicants or a pretty clear justification about why this is not possible. As Gordon Lennox noted, sunk costs are not an adequate explanation. 2. The nomcom needs to consider whether people who are currently or have recently been working at the RIPE NCC at any level should be subject to timeout / grace periods to protect both the candidates and the position from suggestions of revolving doors. There's plenty of precedent and experience in this area of governance. 3. the RIPE community needs to understand whether the NomCom can continue to assert that the process is independent of the RIPE NCC given not just the individual impact of the issues raised, but also the cumulative impact of these issues. These are not easy questions to answer, or to remedy when they've been answered. Nick
Hi, Brian Brian wrote:
I think it's clear that, in future the involvement of NCC staff in the NomCom (other than agreed secretariat roles) should be severely limited [...] and there should be consideration given to limits or grace periods or the like where someone has been working for the NCC or on the Exec Board.
It turns out that you actually agree with the points that Nick and I have made, so thank you for clarifying. It seems that where we disagree is whether we should start that for this appointment or for the next. If governance is improved by seeing the Community and NCC separation in the work of our committees then let's have that improvement for THIS selection. We can ensure this quickly (without even delaying the chair appointment) by altering the constitution of those committees today - to reflect YOUR suggestion of severely limited involvement of NCC staffers in this process, and YOUR suggestion of a grace period - by those impacted by the limits and grace period withdrawing themselves. [ Not withdrawing from the community, where their work is valued and welcomed, but from the nomination committee for this important leadership role. ] Andy
Andy, I agree that things can be improved, but that's an improvement, I don't think that things are terribly broken, nor that changing things for this iteration will improve the situation that the Community is in, with a great need for a Chair and Vice-Chair appointed via the Community agreed consensus. I'm slightly surprised by the use of debating tricks in your email, to be honest. These are not my suggestions, these are points that I note can be improved when we review the process, based on what we have learned from this iteration. I'm agreeing that Nick has raised some useful points, because I tend to find he does, but please don't put words in my mouth. Thanks, Brian Brian Nisbet Service Operations Manager HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland +35316609040 brian.nisbet@heanet.ie www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270 ________________________________________ From: Andy Davidson <andy@nosignal.org> Sent: Wednesday 27 May 2020 16:21 To: Brian Nisbet Cc: RIPE list Subject: Re: [ripe-list] The NomCom Requests your Support CAUTION[External]: This email originated from outside of the organisation. Do not click on links or open the attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe. Hi, Brian Brian wrote:
I think it's clear that, in future the involvement of NCC staff in the NomCom (other than agreed secretariat roles) should be severely limited [...] and there should be consideration given to limits or grace periods or the like where someone has been working for the NCC or on the Exec Board.
It turns out that you actually agree with the points that Nick and I have made, so thank you for clarifying. It seems that where we disagree is whether we should start that for this appointment or for the next. If governance is improved by seeing the Community and NCC separation in the work of our committees then let's have that improvement for THIS selection. We can ensure this quickly (without even delaying the chair appointment) by altering the constitution of those committees today - to reflect YOUR suggestion of severely limited involvement of NCC staffers in this process, and YOUR suggestion of a grace period - by those impacted by the limits and grace period withdrawing themselves. [ Not withdrawing from the community, where their work is valued and welcomed, but from the nomination committee for this important leadership role. ] Andy
Hi, I am certain that I didn't put words in your mouth, I quoted your words and said that this was a fabulous way forward. Let's implement! Andy On 27/05/2020, 16:25, "Brian Nisbet" <brian.nisbet@heanet.ie> wrote: Andy, I agree that things can be improved, but that's an improvement, I don't think that things are terribly broken, nor that changing things for this iteration will improve the situation that the Community is in, with a great need for a Chair and Vice-Chair appointed via the Community agreed consensus. I'm slightly surprised by the use of debating tricks in your email, to be honest. These are not my suggestions, these are points that I note can be improved when we review the process, based on what we have learned from this iteration. I'm agreeing that Nick has raised some useful points, because I tend to find he does, but please don't put words in my mouth. Thanks, Brian Brian Nisbet Service Operations Manager HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland +35316609040 brian.nisbet@heanet.ie www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270 ________________________________________ From: Andy Davidson <andy@nosignal.org> Sent: Wednesday 27 May 2020 16:21 To: Brian Nisbet Cc: RIPE list Subject: Re: [ripe-list] The NomCom Requests your Support CAUTION[External]: This email originated from outside of the organisation. Do not click on links or open the attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe. Hi, Brian Brian wrote: > I think it's clear that, in future the involvement of NCC staff in > the NomCom (other than agreed secretariat roles) should be > severely limited [...] > and there should be consideration given to limits or grace > periods or the like where someone has been working for the > NCC or on the Exec Board. It turns out that you actually agree with the points that Nick and I have made, so thank you for clarifying. It seems that where we disagree is whether we should start that for this appointment or for the next. If governance is improved by seeing the Community and NCC separation in the work of our committees then let's have that improvement for THIS selection. We can ensure this quickly (without even delaying the chair appointment) by altering the constitution of those committees today - to reflect YOUR suggestion of severely limited involvement of NCC staffers in this process, and YOUR suggestion of a grace period - by those impacted by the limits and grace period withdrawing themselves. [ Not withdrawing from the community, where their work is valued and welcomed, but from the nomination committee for this important leadership role. ] Andy
Ok, let me be very, very clear with you then, given this seems to be your approach. I believe we should complete this process without making any changes or having any pauses. I then believe, in line with what was already agreed, the process should be reviewed and I have some suggestions for that review. Any implication that I believe or have suggested anything else is not the truth. Thank you, Brian Brian Nisbet Service Operations Manager HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland +35316609040 brian.nisbet@heanet.ie www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270 ________________________________________ From: Andy Davidson <andy@nosignal.org> Sent: Wednesday 27 May 2020 16:27 To: Brian Nisbet Cc: RIPE list Subject: Re: [ripe-list] The NomCom Requests your Support CAUTION[External]: This email originated from outside of the organisation. Do not click on links or open the attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe. Hi, I am certain that I didn't put words in your mouth, I quoted your words and said that this was a fabulous way forward. Let's implement! Andy On 27/05/2020, 16:25, "Brian Nisbet" <brian.nisbet@heanet.ie> wrote: Andy, I agree that things can be improved, but that's an improvement, I don't think that things are terribly broken, nor that changing things for this iteration will improve the situation that the Community is in, with a great need for a Chair and Vice-Chair appointed via the Community agreed consensus. I'm slightly surprised by the use of debating tricks in your email, to be honest. These are not my suggestions, these are points that I note can be improved when we review the process, based on what we have learned from this iteration. I'm agreeing that Nick has raised some useful points, because I tend to find he does, but please don't put words in my mouth. Thanks, Brian Brian Nisbet Service Operations Manager HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland +35316609040 brian.nisbet@heanet.ie https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.heanet.... Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270 ________________________________________ From: Andy Davidson <andy@nosignal.org> Sent: Wednesday 27 May 2020 16:21 To: Brian Nisbet Cc: RIPE list Subject: Re: [ripe-list] The NomCom Requests your Support CAUTION[External]: This email originated from outside of the organisation. Do not click on links or open the attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe. Hi, Brian Brian wrote: > I think it's clear that, in future the involvement of NCC staff in > the NomCom (other than agreed secretariat roles) should be > severely limited [...] > and there should be consideration given to limits or grace > periods or the like where someone has been working for the > NCC or on the Exec Board. It turns out that you actually agree with the points that Nick and I have made, so thank you for clarifying. It seems that where we disagree is whether we should start that for this appointment or for the next. If governance is improved by seeing the Community and NCC separation in the work of our committees then let's have that improvement for THIS selection. We can ensure this quickly (without even delaying the chair appointment) by altering the constitution of those committees today - to reflect YOUR suggestion of severely limited involvement of NCC staffers in this process, and YOUR suggestion of a grace period - by those impacted by the limits and grace period withdrawing themselves. [ Not withdrawing from the community, where their work is valued and welcomed, but from the nomination committee for this important leadership role. ] Andy
On 27 May 2020, at 16:43, Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet@heanet.ie> wrote:
I believe we should complete this process without making any changes or having any pauses. I then believe, in line with what was already agreed, the process should be reviewed and I have some suggestions for that review.
I agree wholeheartedly with this. We have rough consensus for the current process. It should proceed as-is. Introducing a delay is not going to help. If anything, it will add unwelcome risks and uncertainties at this very critical point. The concerns that Nick and others have raised are reasonable in principle. But sadly they are not timely. Besides, there’s no (rough) consensus for adding a further delay or finding some other way to resolve these concerns. IMO that means the pragmatic approach is to continue with the current process and timetable. We can surely trust the Nomcom to have taken note of these concerns as part of their deliberations. So let them do their job. The appointment process will get reviewed after it has been run. That will be the appropriate time and place to consider these concerns and make whatever adjustments are thought necessary for the next time an appointment needs to be made.
Hi, On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 08:11:49PM +0100, Jim Reid wrote:
We can surely trust the Nomcom to have taken note of these concerns as part of their deliberations.
We are listening. Our minutes are full of "these concerns have been voiced, how can, should or must we address them?". Gert Doering -- speaking as NomCom member -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
On 27 May 2020, at 16:21, Andy Davidson <andy@nosignal.org> wrote:
If governance is improved by seeing the Community and NCC separation in the work of our committees then let's have that improvement for THIS selection. We can ensure this quickly (without even delaying the chair appointment) by altering the constitution of those committees today
Andy, that’s absurd - sorry. I’m stunned somebody with your levels of clue and community standing could make such a glib statement. Altering the constitution (composition?) of the Nomcom -- which is presumably one of “those committees” -- means changing RFC728. That will be a very slow and painful exercise. It will certainly not be quick and it definitely will delay the appointment of Hans Petter’s replacement(s). If you just meant shuffling the existing Nomcom membership (to displace non-voting NCC "insiders"?), that’s not sensible or justified either. You’ve already said you have confidence in the Nomcom members’ impartiality and sound judgement. So why make some of them wear different hats at this stage? Suppose none of the other Nomcom members are prepared to serve as its Chairman if Daniel is thought to be no longer acceptable in that role. What then? What if some of the Nomcom quit in disgust because of these shenanigans? Are these risks worth it?
On 28 May 2020, at 06:58, Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> wrote:
changing RFC728.
Damn autocorrect again! s/RFC/RIPE/ Sigh.
Hi, Jim
On 28/05/2020, 06:58, "Jim Reid" <jim@rfc1035.com> wrote:
On 27 May 2020, at 16:21, Andy Davidson <andy@nosignal.org> wrote: If governance is improved by seeing the Community and NCC separation in the work of our committees then let's have that improvement for THIS selection. We can ensure this quickly (without even delaying the chair appointment) by altering the constitution of those committees today Altering the constitution (composition?) of the Nomcom -- which is presumably one of “those committees” -- means changing RFC728. That will be a very slow and painful exercise.
Yes, composition. And it does not mean improving RIPE-728 instantly, just some concrete actions by members which solve this conflict of interest at play whilst the work continues.
Suppose none of the other Nomcom members are prepared to serve as its Chairman if Daniel is thought to be no longer acceptable in that role. What then?
I think better of the people on the Nom-com than to assume they would do that. I think better of Daniel than a supposition that he would want or encourage them to do that.
What if some of the Nomcom quit in disgust because of these shenanigans? Are these risks worth it?
We can all play the what if game - what if people are turned off by participating in our community because we are seen to do nothing when there is a governance problem? In the past, the RIPE Community Chair and the chair of a RIPE Committee/Task Force/Working Group could have had a conversation about a problem regarding RIPE community oversight to an NCC person or function or service. Right now, they can't because the RIPE Chair and the Chair of this Committee *work for the NCC*, and one reports to the other. Do you not see how this is a governance problem, however accidentally derived? Yes or no? Andy
On 28 May 2020, at 08:25, Andy Davidson <andy@nosignal.org> wrote:
Right now, they can't because the RIPE Chair and the Chair of this Committee *work for the NCC*, and one reports to the other. Do you not see how this is a governance problem, however accidentally derived? Yes or no?
In the hypothetical abstract, yes. For the reality we're currently in, no. The WG Chairs recognised this ugliness when they made the pragmatic decision to choose Hans Petter as interim RIPE Chairman for a few weeks while he was also the NCC CEO. They took the reasonable common sense view that this was the least worst option for all concerned. It's a shame you do not seem to be able to accept that perspective. I frankly don't see how these reporting lines possibly matter for the current circumstances. The NCC CEO is not going to tell Daniel how to run the Nomcom or get it to reach a particular decision. And if they did try to do that, we can be sure Daniel would give a suitably robust response. So what are you *really* worrying about? What is the actual problem are you trying to fix? If there's the slightest suspicion that the lines of reporting will cause the Nomcom to deliver a tainted result, we can deal with that problem if and when we get to it.
Hi, On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 07:25:03AM +0000, Andy Davidson wrote:
In the past, the RIPE Community Chair and the chair of a RIPE Committee/Task Force/Working Group could have had a conversation about a problem regarding RIPE community oversight to an NCC person or function or service. Right now, they can't because the RIPE Chair and the Chair of this Committee *work for the NCC*, and one reports to the other. Do you not see how this is a governance problem, however accidentally derived? Yes or no?
No. Well. You are mixing (at least) three things here, and it would be good if you speak more precisely about what you are talking about. Because the differences are very significant. There is the RIPE Interim Chair which happens to be RIPE NCC MD - which is something we all want to *end*. It will end sooner if we can present a successor as planned. Then, there is the RIPE NomCom Chair - who happens to be an NCC employee, yes. But the rules of this game are very clear: follow the process described, lead the NomCom in a neutral and transparent way, do not influence the candidate selection. The NomCom members are not newcomers to this game of politics and influence-taking, so we can judge well what Daniel is doing (exactly what he was asked to do, in a very painstakingly neutral and correct way). And then there's RIPE working group chairs, RIPE task force chairs, who have nothing to do whatsoever with the question at hand (NomCom and WG chair) - but yes, the question can of course be asked "do we have a problem here". But this is a different topic, and should not be randomly lumped all together. By - good - tradition, the chairs of the address policy and NCC services working group are not NCC employees, because that could indeed cause conflicts of interest, while it's very hard to construct such a conflict for, say, the IoT WG - but strictly speaking, this is a matter for the respective WG or TF to decide who they want and trust as their chairperson. Gert Doering -- NomCom member, APWG chair, NCC member, Community member -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
On 27/05/2020 13:55, Nick Hilliard wrote:
It is not tenable to hold this expectation and at the same time for the NomCom to be chaired by a RIPE NCC staff member,
Nick, hi. ripe-727 says: "RIPE NCC Executive Board: The governing body of the RIPE NCC association. This document calls for the RIPE NCC Executive Board to appoint the NomCom chair and to confirm the selections made by the NomCom." RIPE NCC Executive Board appointed Daniel.
while one of the candidates is also a RIPE NCC staff member,
I can't find in ripe-727 or ripe-728 any mention that current RIPE NCC employees are not eligible for nomination for RIPE Chair position.
and where the current RIPE Chair is the RIPE NCC MD.
<shrug> Nothing you or I or anyone else can do about it right now. It happened. Are you suggesting that pausing or prolonging the process would make things look better? Cheers, Jan
Jan Zorz - Go6 wrote on 27/05/2020 13:48:
Are you suggesting that pausing or prolonging the process would make things look better?
No, I'm suggesting we need a pause to allow time for good hard think about the circumstances, and whether we'd end up with a better or worse outcome if changes were made as a result of that. Nick
Hi Nick.
Op 27 mei 2020, om 14:50 heeft Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> het volgende geschreven:
Jan Zorz - Go6 wrote on 27/05/2020 13:48:
Are you suggesting that pausing or prolonging the process would make things look better?
No, I'm suggesting we need a pause to allow time for good hard think about the circumstances, and whether we'd end up with a better or worse outcome if changes were made as a result of that.
In that case: NomCom has taken a pause and I'm sure all NomCom members have thought hard about the circumstances. This is indeed not an easy situation. We'll have a meeting later today and discuss those thoughts. I'm sure Daniel will be quick with publishing our minutes. Cheers, Sander
Hi Andy,
On 26/05/2020, 00:30, Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> wrote:
On 25 May 2020, at 23:42, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote: The concerns that were raised on the ripe-chair-discuss mailing list haven't been addressed. Rather than prompting for a mandate to "just get on with it", these issues need to be addressed. With all due respect Nick, no they don’t. The concerns you and others have raised have been heard. They don’t have to be addressed.
Jim, you then go on to quote directly from RFC7282 which says very clearly that the concerns DO need to be addressed.
Jim quoted it the wrong way around: concerns have to be addressed, but not accommodated.
To quote from RFC7282: 3. Rough consensus is achieved when all issues are addressed, but not necessarily accommodated
Nick has made some very valid points on the ripe-chair-discuss mailing list, in message https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ripe-chair-discuss/2020-May/000271.h.... After just three days of discussion, Daniel shut down the conversation in message https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ripe-chair-discuss/2020-May/000347.h... saying the Nomcom needed to 'take a break for a few days'. Without responding to any of the concerns - or 'addressing' them to use your choice of word, or even reference to them, Daniel then opens a new thread on an entirely different mailing list asking for wide community support to proceed unchanged.
I feel this is an unreasonable attack on Daniel. He has done no such thing as shutting down the discussion. And yes: we needed a break to discuss the feedback and consider how to address it. Daniel is the chair of the NomCom. Daniel chairs the NomCom meetings, and the NomCom decides how to move forward. Your wording makes it sound like Daniel is the one making the decisions. I can assure your that that is not the case.
This is not consensus building. This is not suitable methodology from the Chair. This is disingenuous.
I think there is a misunderstanding about the process here: We try to hear all voices from the community to determine who would be the best people for the chair and vice-chair functions, and if we can get unanimous support for those candidates then that would be the optimal outcome. Which is what we try to achieve of course! But in the end, the process is: "NomCom actively solicits input from the entire community" and "The NomCom then selects one person to serve as RIPE Chair and another person to serve as RIPE Vice Chair". The process is not "NomCom builds consensus". If that is what you want then propose an update to ripe-727 for the next iteration of the process. This is not the time to try to change the process.
I would ask those wishing to contribute to this thread to read the ripe-chair-discuss thread to familiarise themselves with the complaint.
Absolutely!
The pool of talent in the RIPE community is sufficiently large enough to mean that the independence of the NCC and Community can be preserved through having different people contribute to the work of our committees, working-groups, and leadership teams; to say or to behave that this is not the case demonstrates contempt.
Please stop trying to insult the NomCom and its chair. The last thing the NomCom has for the community is contempt. We do however listen to the entire community and balance the feedback received from all. What happened on ripe-chair-discuss is one data point for us, and we take that very seriously. We even think about how to accommodate it as far as possible, but we will definitely address it. Cheers, Sander
On 26 May 2020, at 09:49, Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> wrote:
Jim, you then go on to quote directly from RFC7282 which says very clearly that the concerns DO need to be addressed.
Jim quoted it the wrong way around: concerns have to be addressed, but not accommodated.
Correct. You all know what I meant anyway: we already have rough consensus for the status quo. Thanks Sander.
Hi, <with my RIPE NomCom member hat on> On 26/05/2020 07:59, Andy Davidson wrote:
Without responding to any of the concerns - or 'addressing' them to use your choice of word, or even reference to them, Daniel then opens a new thread on an entirely different mailing list
I believe that Daniel is just doing his chairman duty and is following the process to the letter. RIPE-728 says: “ All announcements must be made using at least the mechanism used by the RIPE NCC for its announcements, including a notice on the RIPE NCC website. As of the publication of this document, the current mechanism is an email message to the'ripe@ripe.net' mailing list.” He sent a message to the appropriate mailing list.
asking for wide community support to proceed unchanged.
This was a consensus reached inside NomCom on what to do next. He did not do anything at all on his own.
This is not consensus building. This is not suitable methodology from the Chair. This is disingenuous.
I wholeheartedly disagree. He's just doing his job and he's doing it well. <RIPE community member hat on> What Nick (and some responses to his initial email) asked is to draw a line between the RIPE community and the RIPE NCC. That's fine and lovely. I think that the RIPE NomCom has absolutely *NO* authority or mandate to discuss or draw the line between the RIPE community and the RIPE NCC. This might be an interesting subject to discuss over beer, but RIPE NomCom is not the place where this discussion could take place and therefore this debate *MUST NOT* influence the RIPE NomCom work at slightest. If community wants to define and implement a clear distinction and draw a line between RIPE Community and RIPE NCC - we are welcome to do it even now, but that does not affect the work of 2020 NomCom. However, what community can do is to read our report when we are done and change the process for RIPE NomCom that will be formed in 3 years time. Don't fix the aircraft during the flight. Don't stop the engines and jump out of it. Let's land with as less damage as possible and fix the process for the next flight. Cheers, Jan Žorž
On 5/26/20 1:29 AM, jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) wrote:
On 25 May 2020, at 23:42, Nick Hilliard <nick at foobar.org> wrote:
Dear all,
The concerns that were raised on the ripe-chair-discuss mailing list haven't been addressed.
Rather than prompting for a mandate to "just get on with it", these issues need to be addressed.
With all due respect Nick, no they don?t. The concerns you and others have raised have been heard. They don?t have to be addressed. They?ve been accommodated. It?s been explained why it?s both impractical and unreasonable to address those concerns at this time. Or to pause the current process until such time as they could be addressed.
Those who disagree with that assessment are welcome to raise their concerns with the NomCom. After all, the people raising these concerns have said that they are not questioning the integrity or judgement of either the Nomcom or the candidates. So in that case, the Nomcom and candidiates should be left to get on with the job they *volunteered* to perform. Or are they not to be trusted after all?
If the Nomcom can be trusted, raise these recent concerns through the appropriate channel and let the Nomcom decide what to do about those concerns since we can be sure they?ll do The Right Thing. It?s that simple. If the Nomcom can?t be trusted, we have to blow up the appointment process -- good luck getting consensus on a new one -- and then be forced to make even uglier decisions about how to appoint a temporary replacement who may well be left dangling for years. FWIW it took 4 years to get consensus on the current selection process and start implementing it. Does anyone *really* want to start all that again?
Remember that the current process is not cast in stone. It can (and very probably will) get revised in light of the lessons learned from the first time it?s been tried. That will be the proper time and place to address these recent concerns. Please note these were raised long after the train had left the station. We?d reached consensus on how Hans Petter?s successor was to be appointed and put that process into effect. Unwinding it now is not a good look at all.
IIUC RIPE uses the RFC7282 definition of consensus. That means we have rough consensus that the current appointment process with the current NomCom and current pool of candidates can go ahead as-is.
To quote from RFC7282:
3. Rough consensus is achieved when all issues are addressed, but not necessarily accommodated
... Often, a working group will encounter an objection where everyone understands the issue and acknowledges that it is a real shortcoming in the proposed solution, but the vast majority of the working group believes that accommodating the objection is not worth the tradeoff of fixing the problem.
Though for us s/working group/RIPE community/
Oh and in case there?s any doubt, I say to the Nomcom - just get on with it.
I think that's an excellent analysis, huge +1 Please let's not interrupt the agreed upon process as it will bring a lot of risk while doing so. It's the first time, there probably are shortcomings somewhere. Let us please fix those for the second run for the next RIPE Chair to be after the term of the now we chose now is finished. Dear NomCom: Please keep calm and carry on <3 Best Max
Daniel, all, I suspect, given my previous comments on the process list, that what I'm about to say won't be surprising to many. I would like the NomCom to proceed. Yes, some questions have been raised, but a) I do not feel any of them are anywhere close to existential enough to put a halt to proceedings and b) they all say that they think there are four good candidates that can do the job. Equally, we went through a hugely long process to get to where we are and what we have now was always a possibility out of that. There are checks and balances in the documents and there is the plan to learn from this process and improve it for the next time, this is all reassuring. I actually think it's a pity there has been a pause over the last week, albeit I completely understand why and would likely do the same if I was chairing the NomCom. But yes, in short, I believe the community consensus is still to proceed and I would be very happy if you did. Thank you, Brian Brian Nisbet Service Operations Manager HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland +35316609040 brian.nisbet@heanet.ie www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270 ________________________________ From: ripe-list <ripe-list-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of Daniel Karrenberg via ripe-list <ripe-list@ripe.net> Sent: Monday 25 May 2020 15:44 To: RIPE list <ripe-list@ripe.net>; Christian Kaufmann <ck@ripe.net>; Franziska Lichtblau <rhalina@old-forest.org>; Hans Petter Holen <hph@ripe.net> Subject: [ripe-list] The NomCom Requests your Support CAUTION[External]: This email originated from outside of the organisation. Do not click on links or open the attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Friends and Colleagues of the RIPE community, If your feeling is something like "Oh no, not another long message from the NomCom! I wish they would just get on with it." you do not need to read further. It would certainly help us if you explicitly told us briefly to "just get on with it". Thanks Daniel ------------------ From: Daniel Karrenberg - Chair of the RIPE 2020 Nominating Committee. To: Christian Kaufmann - Chair of the RIPE NCC Executive Board, Franziska Lichtblau - Chair of the RIPE Program Committee, Hans Petter Holen - RIPE Chair ad-interim & Chair of the RIPE WG Chairs, RIPE Community. Christian, Franziska, Hans Petter, Friends and Colleagues, The process to select two persons to succeed Hans Petter Holen as RIPE chair has been under way since September 2019. The NomCom has worked diligently to run the process that has been agreed by the community and codified in ripe-727 and ripe-728. We have called for nominees, canvassed when we had only one nomination and received four further nominations. We have dealt with the unforeseen withdrawal of Hans Petter. We have recognised the increased urgency that Hans Petter's resignation as RIPE Chair puts on the process by slightly tightening our time line without compromising on running an exemplary process. We have held three formal and two informal meetings, talked to the nominees by teleconference and received substantial input about all nominees from a diverse set of people in the community. We have kept the community informed by announcements on the RIPE mailing list, by providing a dedicated blog, by publishing complementary material on RIPE Labs, by reporting to the community plenary at RIPE80 and by talking about our work whenever the opportunity presented itself. Last week, during RIPE80, there were some calls from within the RIPE community to stop this process and start over. There also have been suggestions to issue another call for nominations and then continue as before. Since our mandate does not extend beyond executing the process along an agreed time line we are extremely reluctant to deviate from this unless we observe a clear and strong consensus in the community to deviate for the sake of pragmatism. We have discussed this extensively and decided against changing the planned time line because we see no such consensus. We also considered the consequences: Deviating from the plan at this time would put Hans Petter into the difficult position of having to work a new and demanding job next to filling the RIPE Chair ad interim role. This is too much to ask of anyone even without taking into account the recent discussion on ripe-chair-discuss. Hans Petter has told us that he accepted the ad-interim role on the assumption that we will finish our work on time and that he will likely have to resign if we take significantly longer than planned. Unfortunately during the RIPE 80 community plenary there has been no discussion that provides further guidance to us. It is difficult for us to assess whether this was due to the virtual format of the meeting, widespread agreement with what we have done so far or any other reason. We certainly expected those who had called for changes to the process earlier during the week to speak up and a discussion to take place that would provide further guidance for us. This has not happened. We have therefore decided to briefly pause our process and not to start candidate selection after RIPE 80 as originally planned. We have continued with preparations but have not started discussing the nominees among ourselves yet. We ask the RIPE NCC Board, the PC, the WG Chairs and the community at large to give us timely guidance on how to proceed. The question before us is whether we still have the support of the community to continue with the agreed process and time line or whether there is consensus in the community that we should do something different. We need this guidance now so that we can keep the delay in the time line as short as possible. We also ask the community as a whole to support us once we do proceed. Daniel Karrenberg, Chair, RIPE 2020 Nominating Committee
Daniel Karrenberg via ripe-list writes:
Dear Friends and Colleagues of the RIPE community,
If your feeling is something like "Oh no, not another long message from the NomCom! I wish they would just get on with it." you do not need to read further. It would certainly help us if you explicitly told us briefly to "just get on with it".
"Just get on with it" was indeed my first reaction but I red the message anyway. Also the followup and that didn't not change my intital opinion. So, do continue, and give advice the new chair to start a review process for the next round (Just kike hph got that from k13). Regards, jaap
All, Thank you for all the input we have received so far, both public and private. It is really useful for the NomCom and we appreciate you taking the time to respond. We will hold our next meeting at 1400UTC tomorrow, Wednesday. In case you are still working on finishing that eloquent draft, please consider sending it to us before noon (UTC) tomorrow. We would also appreciate to hear reactions to our call for support from the liaisons at that meeting. Best Daniel Karrenberg Chair RIPE 2020 Nominating Committee
I hesitated to send this. But as a good friend of RIPE - and yes that is how I see myself - I would like to think that RIPE is still more than robust enough to accept another voice. We are not in a happy place right now. And I am not just thinking about this damn virus thing. Though that is stressing an awful lot of people. Elsewhere I have been hearing - it has been anecdotal, but from health professionals - of an up-tick in suicides and attempted suicides. I hope everyone on this list is still safe and well. But when we have over 2000 people registering for a meeting then it is statistically certain that some know people who have been sick and maybe some who have died. So perhaps more than usual it is a time to carry out our business with a degree of calmness and sensitivity. We can do it. Any rush is of our own making, our own choosing. Mind you I cannot help wonder if we would be having this discussion and in this way if we had been able to meet in Berlin. I don’t think anyone is certain anymore if we will even meet up again in Milan. But that would be good. Anyway I was struck by the subject line of this thread. I am not aware of anyone attacking the non-com, individually or collectively. I think there is community support. Likewise I am not aware of any personal attack on any of the gang of four! However a number of people, good people from the community, have expressed concerns. I think it was good that those concerns were expressed and I appreciated how they were expressed. I have been less comfortable with the responses. I just don’t buy the sunk costs argument. In the real world we all - most of us? - have walked away at one point or another. We accept the losses incurred - emotional, financial, whatever - and do something different. It is not always great. But it is sometimes necessary. I don’t accept the implied time constraints. As far as I am concerned this process was started by Rob over five years ago. When Rob passed the baton to Hans-Petter he said he did it like that because there was no procedure. And I do not think anyone, including Rob and Hans-Petter of course, presumed that after a number of years Hans-Petter, and at his sole discretion, would do just like Rob? So we had our problem statement. Right there, right then. Except it has all taken a bit longer than anyone might have expected? I do not quite see the relationship between the non-com and the procedure the way some apparently see it. I also sense that some others share my view The agreed procedure was not an attempt to micro-manage the non-com. It was rather a tool given to the non-com to help them with their job. I would expect the non-com to know more about how the procedure works and what its limitations are. In a deep sense I am still happier with the non-com than I am with the procedure because I would expect the non-com to tell us whether the procedure is helping them to deliver or not. I suspect though that things have not played out that well. Only one name in the beginning? So the other three were invited, encouraged cajoled by the non-com? i now wonder to what extent this was due to the “job description”. I confess I have somewhat lost track of what the common perception is. Once upon a time, and indeed for a long time, the RIPE Chair was a part-time unpaid position. And to an extent at the discretion of the RIPE community? Just like WG chairs and all the rest of the wonderful volunteer army. Now we are talking about a full-time salaried position with NCC? Or what? Anyway I hope others are clear! My choice though of the word “salaried” was deliberate. I was being a tad provocative. But i hope for a good reason. There has been discussions about the separation between RIPE and NCC. I don’t want to preempt them. But if the RIPE Chair is a “full-time salaried position with NCC” would we have done it this way? Seriously? I should add that as I clearly no longer have the expertise in dutch employment laws that I once ought to have had I would very much like advice from somebody who does. I am aware for example than in some European countries you cannot simply renew temporary / fixed-term contracts. There comes a point that by law “temporary” becomes “permanent”. Anyway there is a relatively new advisor with NCC who definitely knows an awful lot about this. But then again Axel has always been discrete! However to close I would simply say that the non-com has my support. But i would encourage them to continue look to the whole RIPE community. We in turn count on their intelligence and integrity. Earlier in this thread Rob was mentioned. I have no idea what he might have done. And I have no way of contacting him? But back then he was not always constrained by process or the lack thereof. Gordon
Hi Daniel, hi folks, writing this with my PC chair hat on. After giving everyone time to express their thoughts on the matter I can confirm that we have consensus within the PC that the NomCom still has our support. Jan, our liason member in the NomCom has kept us in the loop and confirmed that the process which was agreed upon by the RIPE community was followed. Yes, the process we designed has flaws, but we do not feel them to be substantial enough to restart the process. The candidates themselves seem to have the general support of the community and the flaws within the process do not outweigh that in our opinion. As the concerns per se are valid, we should make it a priority task to the next RIPE (vice)chair to make sure this discussion takes place and the policy is adapted so that the concerns get addressed. Best regards, Franziska (RIPE PC Chair) On Mon, 2020-05-25 at 16:44 +0200, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
Dear Friends and Colleagues of the RIPE community,
If your feeling is something like "Oh no, not another long message from the NomCom! I wish they would just get on with it." you do not need to read further. It would certainly help us if you explicitly told us briefly to "just get on with it".
Thanks
Daniel
------------------
From:
Daniel Karrenberg - Chair of the RIPE 2020 Nominating Committee.
To:
Christian Kaufmann - Chair of the RIPE NCC Executive Board,
Franziska Lichtblau - Chair of the RIPE Program Committee,
Hans Petter Holen - RIPE Chair ad-interim & Chair of the RIPE WG Chairs,
RIPE Community.
Christian, Franziska, Hans Petter, Friends and Colleagues,
The process to select two persons to succeed Hans Petter Holen as RIPE chair has been under way since September 2019. The NomCom has worked diligently to run the process that has been agreed by the community and codified in ripe-727 and ripe-728. We have called for nominees, canvassed when we had only one nomination and received four further nominations. We have dealt with the unforeseen withdrawal of Hans Petter. We have recognised the increased urgency that Hans Petter's resignation as RIPE Chair puts on the process by slightly tightening our time line without compromising on running an exemplary process. We have held three formal and two informal meetings, talked to the nominees by teleconference and received substantial input about all nominees from a diverse set of people in the community. We have kept the community informed by announcements on the RIPE mailing list, by providing a dedicated blog, by publishing complementary material on RIPE Labs, by reporting to the community plenary at RIPE80 and by talking about our work whenever the opportunity presented itself.
Last week, during RIPE80, there were some calls from within the RIPE community to stop this process and start over. There also have been suggestions to issue another call for nominations and then continue as before. Since our mandate does not extend beyond executing the process along an agreed time line we are extremely reluctant to deviate from this unless we observe a clear and strong consensus in the community to deviate for the sake of pragmatism.
We have discussed this extensively and decided against changing the planned time line because we see no such consensus. We also considered the consequences: Deviating from the plan at this time would put Hans Petter into the difficult position of having to work a new and demanding job next to filling the RIPE Chair ad interim role. This is too much to ask of anyone even without taking into account the recent discussion on ripe-chair-discuss. Hans Petter has told us that he accepted the ad-interim role on the assumption that we will finish our work on time and that he will likely have to resign if we take significantly longer than planned.
Unfortunately during the RIPE 80 community plenary there has been no discussion that provides further guidance to us. It is difficult for us to assess whether this was due to the virtual format of the meeting, widespread agreement with what we have done so far or any other reason. We certainly expected those who had called for changes to the process earlier during the week to speak up and a discussion to take place that would provide further guidance for us. This has not happened.
We have therefore decided to briefly pause our process and not to start candidate selection after RIPE 80 as originally planned. We have continued with preparations but have not started discussing the nominees among ourselves yet.
We ask the RIPE NCC Board, the PC, the WG Chairs and the community at large to give us timely guidance on how to proceed. The question before us is whether we still have the support of the community to continue with the agreed process and time line or whether there is consensus in the community that we should do something different. We need this guidance now so that we can keep the delay in the time line as short as possible.
We also ask the community as a whole to support us once we do proceed.
Daniel Karrenberg, Chair, RIPE 2020 Nominating Committee
On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 4:45 PM Daniel Karrenberg via ripe-list < ripe-list@ripe.net> wrote:
Dear Friends and Colleagues of the RIPE community,
If your feeling is something like "Oh no, not another long message from the NomCom! I wish they would just get on with it." you do not need to read further. It would certainly help us if you explicitly told us briefly to "just get on with it".
I've read through all the email upto the current time and they haven't really changed my mind, or added anything new. Please continue the process and finish the task you've already started. I belive all candidates can and will do a good job. Yes the outcome might not be perfect, we could end up with 2 people with close ties to RIPE NCC, not perfect. Do we really distrust them That Much by this point in time? I can see us getting there in the future at some point sadly. Let's learn and fix this mixup for the next round. We can only blame ourself for this really, we should have thought about that constrain earlier, I should have mention it cause we just about missed something similar in the IANA transision where most people thought it would be ok to let ICANN keep holding the domain, trademarks etc... but it got moved to another entity in the last few rounds if I remember correctly. -- Roger Jorgensen rogerj@gmail.com
Daniel, I am not sure that I have anything to say that has not been said, but since you were very clear about wanting guidance on how to proceed, here are my analysis and suggestions. # Valid Concerns I think that the points raised by various people in this forum and others are valid. To me, the most important points are around the change in circumstances since the call for candidates for the RIPE Chair position ended. Specifically: 1. The change in Hans Petter's role was not known. 2. The possibility for the RIPE Chair position to be a paid position was not presented. My personal feeling is that these differences are important enough that they would have resulted in a different set of candidates coming forward. # Clarification Needed I think that it would be best to make clarifications as others have called for, for example drawing bright lines between RIPE NCC staff and RIPE community positions, as well as having clarity about how the RIPE NCC intends to fund the RIPE Chair and RIPE Vice Chair positions. # Reset Desireable Since we can select a new interim RIPE Chair, I do not feel that there is any great urgency in moving forward in any particular time frame. In fact, I think that we should select a new interim RIPE Chair as soon as possible. That gives us a bit of time to fix the flaws in the current situation. The next step would be to clarify the things mentioned above. After we have clarification on these important details, then I think it would be best to re-start the RIPE Chair selection process. # Constitutional Crisis I recognize that making any kind of decision about the process itself is beyond the remit of the NomCom. Indeed changing the process itself would be a breach of trust that I cannot imagine the NomCom creating. We have a number of people raising doubts about the state of the RIPE Chair selection process. This is not just one or two people, but several long-standing members of the RIPE community. Contrariwise, we have a number of highly respected and committed people encouraging the process to move forward, "warts and all". Historically the way this sort of disagreement would be resolved is by fiat; the RIPE Chair would make a decision, and we would either applaud it or grumble about it and move on with the work and fun of improving the Internet. So I think that Hans Petter, acting as the interim RIPE Chair, needs to either: 1. Make a statement that the time for discussion is over and that the current process will stand. 2. Call for specific actions to change the process (hopefully along the lines above). 3. Propose some other way forward. I can respect that Hans Petter may feel uncomfortable with this, but I do not see any other way to resolve the issue. # About the Future RIPE Chairs My own feeling is that the next RIPE Chair will have her or his ability to represent the community weakened if we continue on with the current selection, at least initally. If Hans Petter declares that the process stands, at least we have that official stamp, which I think will help a bit. One final note is that neither Hans Petter nor Rob were subjected to any kind of selection process, so the most important thing for any future RIPE Chairs will probably be the relationship with the RIPE community not how they got the role. My sympathy and best wishes to them all! Cheers, -- Shane
participants (21)
-
Alex de Joode -
Andy Davidson -
Benno Overeinder -
Brian Nisbet -
Daniel Karrenberg -
Dmitry Burkov -
Erik Bais -
Franziska Lichtblau -
Gert Doering -
Gordon Lennox -
Jaap Akkerhuis -
Jan Zorz - Go6 -
Jim Reid -
Kurtis Lindqvist -
Lars-Johan Liman -
Maximilian Wilhelm -
Nick Hilliard -
Randy Bush -
Roger Jørgensen -
Sander Steffann -
Shane Kerr