Dave, Thanks for your commentary on this, much appreciated! Dave Crocker wrote the following on 26/09/2014 14:42:
On 9/26/2014 2:23 AM, Brian Nisbet wrote:
Tobias & I would like to present the text below as a starting point for this discussion
These are always fun exercises...
They are, but necessary ones, I think.
Note on Language: Throughout this document the word Chair shall be used for both Chairs and Co-Chairs.
** Introduction:
This document aims to provide outline procedures to deal with the tenure of RIPE Working Group Chairs. It applies to all RIPE Working Groups.
This document outlines procedures dealing with the tenure...
I think I'm missing your point here?
** WG Chair Term:
The normal term for a WG Chair is three years, after which the WG Chair must resign. A WG Chair may stand for re-selection after resignation. A WG Chair may resign voluntarily at any time.
As phrased, this means that there is a gap between resignation and filling the spot with the replacement chair. And if the resignation is 'forced' it isn't really a resignation; it's just the end of their term.
Perhaps:
The term of a WG Chair is three years. A current chair may stand for re-selection at the end of their term. A WG Chair may resign voluntarily at any time.
The "gap" should be no longer than a RIPE meeting and isn't really a big thing. The wording change, yup, I've no problem with that.
** Selection of a WG Chair:
WG Chair vacancies, along with a call for candidates, should be
should -> must
Seems essential to make the minimum announcement time mandatory.
Ah, yes, this isn't an RFC, so language thing, perfectly happy with must.
announced on the WG mailing list at least one month in advance of the date upon which the selection will be held. The announcement should set a closing date for candidates. A WG may request that a WG Chair vacancy
a WG Chair vacancy -> an additional WG Chair position
Ok.
be opened so long as the addition of a new Chair would not cause the number of Chairs of that WG to exceed the maximum number specified in this document.
I didn't see where that maximum was specified.
There's a reason I left out this line: Reference Documents: Working Group Chair Job Description and Procedures (RIPE-542) I've no idea what that reason was, mind, but I'm sure it exists. Anyway, RIPE-542 specifies a maximum of three.
WG Chairs are elected at WG sessions at RIPE meetings. Anyone physically present at the WG session is eligible to participate in the selection process. The candidate does not need to be physically present at the WG session.
If possible the Chair should be elected by acclamation by the WG or by consensus after discussion. If the result is unclear, then a secret ballot should be held. In the case of a ballot, votes will be counted by RIPE NCC Staff and/or Chairs of other WGs. The result will be determined by simple majority.
** Removal of a WG Chair:
A WG Chair may be unable to fulfil their duties as described in this document or otherwise fail to serve the WG and the community. With the endorsement of a significant share of the WG, a vote of no confidence may be initiated.
Before a vote of no confidence is taken, due effort should be made to address the issue(s) leading to the vote. The right of reply must be given to all parties involved in the procedure. If this effort fails to resolve the issue, the vote may proceed.
The vote must be requested on the WG mailing list at least one week in advance of the WG Session at a RIPE meeting and should take place during the WG session. Anyone physically present at the WG session may take
This obviously allows a form of ballot-box stuffing, by permitting votes from people who have not been involved in the wg up to that point. I have no idea how to prevent this, however. In addition, it can be argued that anyone garnering enough ire to motivate the ballot-stuffing effort probably is causing serious problems. The counter to that is that they might be standing up to efforts to coerce the wg...
It does, potentially, and this has been a bone of contention in other discussions. I have no idea how to prevent it either. Possibly more to the point I have no evidence to suggest it would or would not happen. Bussing in people at €350 a pop to remain co-chair of a RIPE WG would seem... frankly insane. That's not to say it'll never happen, of course, but wow. There is, btw, the notion of popping in a consensus stage before the voting stage in a no-confidence motion. It doesn't remove the vote stuffing concern, of course, but it brings the whole thing more in line with preferred RIPE procedure. Brian