Appointment & Removal of Working Group Chairs
Colleagues, As you may have seen on other mailing lists all of the RIPE WG Chairs have been asked to open the discussion with their relevant working groups regarding an agreed set of procedures for the appointment and potential removal of working group chairs, or certainly allowing for their replacement. This is up to each WG to discuss and reach consensus on and is far from set in stone. Tobias & I would like to present the text below as a starting point for this discussion and we welcome your thoughts. While this conversation may be done and dusted on the mailing list before we get to RIPE 69, we will set aside some time at the meeting to discuss it. ****************************** 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. ** 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. ** Selection of a WG Chair: WG Chair vacancies, along with a call for candidates, should be 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 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. 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 part in the vote. The vote should be conducted by secret ballot and votes counted by RIPE NCC Staff and/or WG Chairs of other WGs. The result will be determined by simple majority. If the vote of no confidence in a WG Chair is passed, the seat is vacated and the WG Chair is not eligible for stand for re-selection. ** No Chair: If a working group is left with no Chair, e.g. due to the resignation or removal of the sole WG Chair, then the WG may elect an interim WG Chair according to the selection procedures specified above, but with candidates nominated at the WG session. An interim WG Chair must resign at the next WG session, but may stand for re-selection. ** Staggered Introduction: For the purposes of staggering the introduction of this policy, in the case where all co-Chairs of a WG have served for more than the standard WG Chair term limit, an optional waiver is given to these WGs to allow them to schedule the automatic resignations of their Chairs over the two RIPE meetings immediately following the adoption of this policy. If the WG decides to avail of this waiver, it is the responsibility of the WG to decide in what order its co-Chairs should stand down.
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...
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...
** 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.
** 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.
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
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.
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...
part in the vote. The vote should be conducted by secret ballot and votes counted by RIPE NCC Staff and/or WG Chairs of other WGs. The result will be determined by simple majority. If the vote of no confidence in a WG Chair is passed, the seat is vacated and the WG Chair is not eligible for stand for re-selection.
** No Chair:
If a working group is left with no Chair, e.g. due to the resignation or removal of the sole WG Chair, then the WG may elect an interim WG Chair according to the selection procedures specified above, but with candidates nominated at the WG session. An interim WG Chair must resign at the next WG session, but may stand for re-selection.
** Staggered Introduction:
For the purposes of staggering the introduction of this policy, in the case where all co-Chairs of a WG have served for more than the standard WG Chair term limit, an optional waiver is given to these WGs to allow them to schedule the automatic resignations of their Chairs over the two RIPE meetings immediately following the adoption of this policy. If the WG decides to avail of this waiver, it is the responsibility of the WG to decide in what order its co-Chairs should stand down.
-- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Quite. It is interesting to see just how many people just happen to drift into the room for their first sig meeting, right in time for the vote of no confidence.. Rough consensus gets quite easy to manufacture, when organized that way. On 26-Sep-2014 7:13 pm, "Dave Crocker" <dhc@dcrocker.net> wrote:
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...
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
On 9/29/2014 9:12 AM, Brian Nisbet wrote:
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?
Wordsmithing. This was merely an offer of more concise and direct phrasing. Self-assessment or self-prediction language in documents tends to add only verbosity and distraction. So for example, something like "aims to provide" isn't needed. Either the document does what it intends, or it needs fixing. At the least, I prefer documents that are self-confident that they actually do what they intend, in terms of defining things. Self-doubt about eventual efficacy is always a different matter...
** 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.
My point is that I'm pretty sure there is no gap intended, or at least there shouldn't be, for normally cycling of occupancy. I'd expect the group to want to have the chair seat always occupied. (That is, for cases other than mid-term resignation.) The normal model for normal cycles is that a sitting chair holds the position until the moment the next cycle of the chair puts the next occupant into it. (The fact that the current and next might be the same person doesn't affect this bit of formal modeling.)
** 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.
Hadn't meant to invoke RFC formalities as much as simple, natural-language vocabulary semantics. 'Should' tends to be advisory and the sentence here seems to call for an absolute requirement.
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.
My main concern was that the text promised "in this document". Perhaps the next text is a revision to 542? Sorry if I missed that bit of context. In any event, since the max is indeed specify somewhere, rather than have text making the promise, perhaps just include a citation to the text (in 'this' document or the external one)?
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.
For organizations trying to be dominated by overall community goodwill rather that by artificial and strict procedural formalities -- and I think ripe still falls into the former category -- I'm inclined to suggest some sort of community 'smell' text. That is, having a safety mechanism which calls for the community at large to step back and decide whether it thinks the overall tone of an activity feels acceptable. However I've never seen this idea applied as a formal construct, and I fear that the last time I saw it applied was as the ad hoc, spontaneous effort after the IETF's Kobe blowup, 20+ years ago, that took authority from the IAB and moved it to the IESG. (The popular view is that this was a successful exercise, and given the timespan from then to now, it probably was...) d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Dave Crocker wrote the following on 29/09/2014 19:20:
On 9/29/2014 9:12 AM, Brian Nisbet wrote:
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?
Wordsmithing. This was merely an offer of more concise and direct phrasing.
Self-assessment or self-prediction language in documents tends to add only verbosity and distraction. So for example, something like "aims to provide" isn't needed. Either the document does what it intends, or it needs fixing. At the least, I prefer documents that are self-confident that they actually do what they intend, in terms of defining things. Self-doubt about eventual efficacy is always a different matter...
Ah, indeed, a matter of style, I think. I don't see it as self-doubt, personally but I see your point.
** 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.
My point is that I'm pretty sure there is no gap intended, or at least there shouldn't be, for normally cycling of occupancy. I'd expect the group to want to have the chair seat always occupied. (That is, for cases other than mid-term resignation.)
Well, you certainly wouldn't want the WG to be Chair-less, but that certainly shouldn't happen in the normal course of events. But again, I think this is a minor point and we may adopt the revised wording.
** 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.
Hadn't meant to invoke RFC formalities as much as simple, natural-language vocabulary semantics. 'Should' tends to be advisory and the sentence here seems to call for an absolute requirement.
Honestly, it depends on where you're speaking English, but again, I'm not really arguing the point here.
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.
My main concern was that the text promised "in this document". Perhaps the next text is a revision to 542? Sorry if I missed that bit of context. In any event, since the max is indeed specify somewhere, rather than have text making the promise, perhaps just include a citation to the text (in 'this' document or the external one)?
Yes, this is true. When this document was written it was potentially intended to work for all WGs. That isn't happening, so the hope that it could be included in the WG Chairs Job Description is gone, for the moment at least. I think the citation is needed, or a clear reference at least.
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.
For organizations trying to be dominated by overall community goodwill rather that by artificial and strict procedural formalities -- and I think ripe still falls into the former category -- I'm inclined to suggest some sort of community 'smell' text. That is, having a safety mechanism which calls for the community at large to step back and decide whether it thinks the overall tone of an activity feels acceptable.
However I've never seen this idea applied as a formal construct, and I fear that the last time I saw it applied was as the ad hoc, spontaneous effort after the IETF's Kobe blowup, 20+ years ago, that took authority from the IAB and moved it to the IESG. (The popular view is that this was a successful exercise, and given the timespan from then to now, it probably was...)
Thanks again for this extremely useful feedback. Of course I'd also be very interested to hear from any other members of the WG? Brian
Brian Good start Is a "session" defined? Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie http://www.blacknight.press for all our news & media Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 -----Original Message----- From: anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Brian Nisbet Sent: Friday, September 26, 2014 10:24 AM To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Subject: [anti-abuse-wg] Appointment & Removal of Working Group Chairs Colleagues, As you may have seen on other mailing lists all of the RIPE WG Chairs have been asked to open the discussion with their relevant working groups regarding an agreed set of procedures for the appointment and potential removal of working group chairs, or certainly allowing for their replacement. This is up to each WG to discuss and reach consensus on and is far from set in stone. Tobias & I would like to present the text below as a starting point for this discussion and we welcome your thoughts. While this conversation may be done and dusted on the mailing list before we get to RIPE 69, we will set aside some time at the meeting to discuss it. ****************************** 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. ** 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. ** Selection of a WG Chair: WG Chair vacancies, along with a call for candidates, should be 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 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. 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 part in the vote. The vote should be conducted by secret ballot and votes counted by RIPE NCC Staff and/or WG Chairs of other WGs. The result will be determined by simple majority. If the vote of no confidence in a WG Chair is passed, the seat is vacated and the WG Chair is not eligible for stand for re-selection. ** No Chair: If a working group is left with no Chair, e.g. due to the resignation or removal of the sole WG Chair, then the WG may elect an interim WG Chair according to the selection procedures specified above, but with candidates nominated at the WG session. An interim WG Chair must resign at the next WG session, but may stand for re-selection. ** Staggered Introduction: For the purposes of staggering the introduction of this policy, in the case where all co-Chairs of a WG have served for more than the standard WG Chair term limit, an optional waiver is given to these WGs to allow them to schedule the automatic resignations of their Chairs over the two RIPE meetings immediately following the adoption of this policy. If the WG decides to avail of this waiver, it is the responsibility of the WG to decide in what order its co-Chairs should stand down.
Michele, Sorry for the delay in replying. I'm not sure, right now, if it's written down, but in tandem with the words 'RIPE Meeting' does it really need further explanation or definition? Brian On 02/10/2014 12:26, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote:
Brian Good start
Is a "session" defined?
Regards
Michele
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie http://www.blacknight.press for all our news & media Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
-----Original Message----- From: anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Brian Nisbet Sent: Friday, September 26, 2014 10:24 AM To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Subject: [anti-abuse-wg] Appointment & Removal of Working Group Chairs
Colleagues,
As you may have seen on other mailing lists all of the RIPE WG Chairs have been asked to open the discussion with their relevant working groups regarding an agreed set of procedures for the appointment and potential removal of working group chairs, or certainly allowing for their replacement.
This is up to each WG to discuss and reach consensus on and is far from set in stone.
Tobias & I would like to present the text below as a starting point for this discussion and we welcome your thoughts. While this conversation may be done and dusted on the mailing list before we get to RIPE 69, we will set aside some time at the meeting to discuss it.
******************************
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.
** 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.
** Selection of a WG Chair:
WG Chair vacancies, along with a call for candidates, should be 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 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.
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 part in the vote. The vote should be conducted by secret ballot and votes counted by RIPE NCC Staff and/or WG Chairs of other WGs. The result will be determined by simple majority. If the vote of no confidence in a WG Chair is passed, the seat is vacated and the WG Chair is not eligible for stand for re-selection.
** No Chair:
If a working group is left with no Chair, e.g. due to the resignation or removal of the sole WG Chair, then the WG may elect an interim WG Chair according to the selection procedures specified above, but with candidates nominated at the WG session. An interim WG Chair must resign at the next WG session, but may stand for re-selection.
** Staggered Introduction:
For the purposes of staggering the introduction of this policy, in the case where all co-Chairs of a WG have served for more than the standard WG Chair term limit, an optional waiver is given to these WGs to allow them to schedule the automatic resignations of their Chairs over the two RIPE meetings immediately following the adoption of this policy. If the WG decides to avail of this waiver, it is the responsibility of the WG to decide in what order its co-Chairs should stand down.
-- Brian Nisbet, Network Operations Manager HEAnet Limited, Ireland's Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin 1 Registered in Ireland, no 275301 tel: +35316609040 fax: +35316603666 web: http://www.heanet.ie/
Brian, Thanks for the proposal. I hoped there would be more common ground between the different WG chair selection processes (if only for sanity reasons)... maybe some charitable chair would explain it to me next meeting. This said, while the general rules look good (term duration, re-selection, introduction), I find it way to heavy on physical presence at meetings and voting. As the most important activity of WGs (i.e. policy making) happens on the mailing list, that seems to me to be the proper primary venue for chair selection. And just like for policies, let's at least try to find consensus on the mailing list first (it would also save valuable meeting time). If it finally comes to voting, please don't exclude non-traveling participants. As formal e-voting is probably way to cumbersome, at the very least the voice of those following the session in real-time should be heard. In the case of unclear results, I'd rather delay chair selection, rather than having one that isn't approved by, say, 49% of the membership. For chair removal I don't have a clear-cut opinion, a vote may be the reasonable solution, but again not strictly restricted to physical presence. Gilles -- Fondation RESTENA - DNS-LU 6, rue Coudenhove-Kalergi L-1359 Luxembourg tel: (+352) 424409 fax: (+352) 422473
Gilles, Thanks for this. It's... not straight forward, but always happy to talk about these things. Unfortunately for me physical presence is important, if in no small part to allay the previously vouched fears regarding "bussing people in" which would be far easier virtually than physically. While policy decision and, of course, discussion takes place on the mailing list, the work of the Working Group, traditionally in both AA-WG and other WGs the appointment of new Chairs (or removal) has taken place at meetings, something I would be keen to continue. Brian On 09/10/2014 08:49, Gilles Massen wrote:
Brian,
Thanks for the proposal. I hoped there would be more common ground between the different WG chair selection processes (if only for sanity reasons)... maybe some charitable chair would explain it to me next meeting.
This said, while the general rules look good (term duration, re-selection, introduction), I find it way to heavy on physical presence at meetings and voting. As the most important activity of WGs (i.e. policy making) happens on the mailing list, that seems to me to be the proper primary venue for chair selection. And just like for policies, let's at least try to find consensus on the mailing list first (it would also save valuable meeting time).
If it finally comes to voting, please don't exclude non-traveling participants. As formal e-voting is probably way to cumbersome, at the very least the voice of those following the session in real-time should be heard. In the case of unclear results, I'd rather delay chair selection, rather than having one that isn't approved by, say, 49% of the membership.
For chair removal I don't have a clear-cut opinion, a vote may be the reasonable solution, but again not strictly restricted to physical presence.
Gilles
-- Brian Nisbet, Network Operations Manager HEAnet Limited, Ireland's Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin 1 Registered in Ireland, no 275301 tel: +35316609040 fax: +35316603666 web: http://www.heanet.ie/
Hi Brian (and WG), On 10/09/2014 11:48 PM, Brian Nisbet wrote:
Thanks for this. It's... not straight forward, but always happy to talk about these things.
Which makes you a good chair :)
Unfortunately for me physical presence is important, if in no small part to allay the previously vouched fears regarding "bussing people in" which would be far easier virtually than physically.
I wouldn't say easier - but certainly less expensive. Which is my major grievance with the local presence: it excludes people on economic grounds. And probably the global impact increases roughly with the distance to Amsterdam. Besides, it seems to me that meeting attendance is heavily influenced by the location - so that local participants are always overrepresented.
While policy decision and, of course, discussion takes place on the mailing list, the work of the Working Group, traditionally in both AA-WG and other WGs the appointment of new Chairs (or removal) has taken place at meetings, something I would be keen to continue.
Apparently that is one of the points where WGs have no clear common ground. It also feels a bit 'unbalanced': obviously the policy making is were real "damage" could be done, and nothing protects that from 'bussing people in' - except the consensus declaring. Chairs on the other hand are rather the 'wise guides' (and that is in no way meant to belittle your work!) than dictators, so their "powers" are limited. So are the chair positions really attractive for hostile takeover? So in the interest of an open and inclusive community I still think that a large consensus should be tried first, and voting more or less reserved to removal and cases when there are >1 suitable candidate (where you could also roll the dice, IMHO). Or at the very least allow remote participants to, well, participate. That would require some additional effort over simple mailing-list stuffing. Finally: I won't try to object to your plans, and I do recognize your experience. My hope is to maintain and extend the openness and friendliness of the RIPE WGs as far as reasonable. best, Gilles -- Fondation RESTENA - DNS-LU 6, rue Coudenhove-Kalergi L-1359 Luxembourg tel: (+352) 424409 fax: (+352) 422473
participants (5)
-
Brian Nisbet -
Dave Crocker -
Gilles Massen -
Michele Neylon - Blacknight -
Suresh Ramasubramanian