Re: [ripe-list] The NomCom Requests your Support
2nd try....
On 28. May 2020, at 10:38, Christian Kaufmann <ck@minxs.net> wrote:
Dear NomCom, Dear Community,
The independence and stability of the RIPE Chair role is the highest priority for the RIPE NCC Executive Board. For this reasons we will stick to the documented and agreed process, this said let me share some more thoughts of us.
We appointed Daniel as a non voting NomCom Chair as he knows the process:-), but also was not running himself. As he is non voting but just chairing and facilitating we did not perceive this as a conflict of interest. The NCC is running many services for the community so we did not see this any different. We did not foresee that NCC staff would apply for the role but then again we have an independent NomCom in which we trust and the process is not forbidding this either.
Our second task is to review if the process was followed, not who was elected and why and we are still happy to fulfill this task.
Regarding the renumeration, this topic came up and the board promised to financially support the chair/vice-chair construct if the candidates wishes so to ensure their independence. We also made clear we do not want another MD type person to manage, so even if we support the RIPE Chair we do not want to manage the yearly performance or salary increase of this position as this clearly wouldn’t go well with our goal of an independent Chair. A suggestion we started to discuss, but which is not yet defined is to offer a fixed salary for 5 years and a “performance review” executed by the community if they wish so. This salary would then be earmarked and reserved so nobody can touch it or change it, means the independence of the Chair does not get compromised. We as the board believe this should be a solid enough construct and do not want to create a RIPE Community B.V. Or any other legal body to facility a potentially salary payment. But then again this is up to the community and not to us.
We have heard and read the comments here on the list and sympathies with many of them and there is clearly more work to be done for round 2. This said we have full trust in the NomCom and the process and will do our part in it.
Best regards on behalf of the NCC Executive Board,
/ck
Sent from a mobile device at the end of the galaxy...
On 26. May 2020, at 22:32, Franziska Lichtblau <rhalina@old-forest.org> wrote:
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
Dear all, There seem to be many parallel discussions around this in different RIPE groups. I will make my comments here as a RIPE community member.
On 28 May 2020, at 10:57, Christian Kaufmann <ck@minxs.net> wrote:
2nd try....
On 28. May 2020, at 10:38, Christian Kaufmann <ck@minxs.net> wrote:
Dear NomCom, Dear Community,
The independence and stability of the RIPE Chair role is the highest priority for the RIPE NCC Executive Board. For this reasons we will stick to the documented and agreed process, this said let me share some more thoughts of us.
We appointed Daniel as a non voting NomCom Chair as he knows the process:-), but also was not running himself. As he is non voting but just chairing and facilitating we did not perceive this as a conflict of interest. The NCC is running many services for the community so we did not see this any different.
I believe this to have been a rather poor call from the RIPE NCC board, as a strictly personal, non-member opinion. This is ##NOT## because of it being Daniel, for whom I have the highest possible respect in this context, but because Daniel has been and continues to be a major ##RIPE NCC## figure. It is not a personal but a role issue. Available options such as the figure of “Prior chair”, fulfilled by Anna Wilson, are more clearly an advisory role. The role of chair, even if non-voting, has a very different profile in any group dynamic. The role of chair is not the role of secretary. However, things are as they are.
We did not foresee that NCC staff would apply for the role but then again we have an independent NomCom in which we trust and the process is not forbidding this either.
Indeed! Recently several people asked me and/or nominated me for the RIPE NCC board elections. I politely declined because I spend most of my time with a different RIR, not because the process didn’t allow me to run. As the saying goes “do not cross the beams”.
Our second task is to review if the process was followed, not who was elected and why and we are still happy to fulfill this task.
That poses an interesting point for a future review of the process document, as what I understand from this is that the current document makes the RIPE NCC board the reviewer of its own decision, as part of the process. I admit I failed to spot the loop during the discussions that resulted in RIPE 727.
Regarding the renumeration, this topic came up and the board promised to financially support the chair/vice-chair construct if the candidates wishes so to ensure their independence.
The approach you describe sounds good for maintaining independence. However, the issue around which I understand the discussion is focusing is that this was not clear at the time of candidate application time and it has great influence on the potential pool of candidates. It is a fundamental difference on the definition of the “job” and as such, a change like this should automatically trigger a reset of the process to the point when candidates are solicited. ##NOT## because of who is in the noncom and ##NOT## because of issues around whether the relevant RIPE Document is being followed but because the “job” has changed. Further, this is an initiative that I believe the Noncom itself ought to trigger. To conclude, I see the issues above as two completely separate issues, which happen to involve the same process. I also happen to believe that a good run is more important than keeping to a timeline, in particular since this is the first time we run the process, and that recent changes in the RIPE Chair/RIPE MD should not pre-empt a better instance of the run. I think I am fairly pragmatical person, so I would like to invoke the “pragmatism” section of RIPE 727 and request that this message be my input to "Any such deviations and the appropriate community involvement should be clearly documented each time." Regards, Joao Luis Silva Damas Just a RIPE community participant
participants (2)
-
Christian Kaufmann -
Joao Luis Silva Damas