All, Having been directly involved with the db-wg chair selection process (as one of the new co-chairs). All three chair terms expired annually in this recent rotation, two of the chairs expressed that they did not wish to continue as a chair. The resulting process did end in random selection from a hat. This process excluded the one chair who had served many terms. This led to no continuity across the chairs. Peter, I appreciate the vote of confidence that the sky hasn’t fallen yet in db-wg. :-) The point that the incumbent was out providing no continuity is a valid one. This process should be evaluated for the future. Another topic that I have found challenging is the idea of consensus. Something the database working group has struggled with are proposals that only a few people comment about. Establishing consensus with few participants is a challenge. This results in no progress moving forward. If several people agree on something with no objections, should that be consensus. I agree that consistency might be useful. William On 2/6/17, 9:55 AM, "accountability-tf on behalf of Peter Koch" <accountability-tf-bounces@ripe.net on behalf of pk@DENIC.DE> wrote: On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 03:39:47PM +0100, Hans Petter Holen wrote: > and does it make sense to have different chair election procedures for each > wg? Now that the chairs' collective has a less operational role in the PDP ... > The selection process in itself had some surprising elements: > - all chairs up for selection at the same time > - unless a candidate stepped down it ended up with a draw from a hat. adding to this, partly contradicting my earlier sentiment: the draw ended with the only running incumbent being 'out'. Sky hasn't fallen yet, though, IMHO. -Peter