Final Draft Version - Appointment & Removal of AA-WG Chairs
Colleagues, Apologies for the long delay on this, here is some very slightly revised text. It hasn't diverged much from the text of the 26th of September, but I've taken into account a number of comments that were made, especially around language. It is still my intention, at least initially, to limit this to the people in the room at a WG session at a RIPE meeting, but obviously this is up to the WG, so we can discuss this tomorrow. ************** Note on Language: Throughout this document the word Chair shall be used for both Chairs and Co-Chairs. ** Introduction: This document outlines procedures dealing with the tenure of RIPE Working Group Chairs. It applies to all RIPE Working Groups. ** WG Chair Term: 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, must 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 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 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, Without wanting to argue on the local presence for the election, I wanted to know whether you think if the chair-selection-process should be considered a kind of policy (and thus be decided consensus based on the mailing list), or rather something to be managed under the authority of the chair? Or in-between? (...and no, I'm not proposing a PDP to define the process for selecting a process for choosing WG chair - this is not ICANN after all...) best, Gilles (who is slightly annoyed for having to chose between MAT-wg and anti-abuse-wg...) On 4/11/2014, 15:04 , Brian Nisbet wrote:
Colleagues,
Apologies for the long delay on this, here is some very slightly revised text. It hasn't diverged much from the text of the 26th of September, but I've taken into account a number of comments that were made, especially around language.
It is still my intention, at least initially, to limit this to the people in the room at a WG session at a RIPE meeting, but obviously this is up to the WG, so we can discuss this tomorrow.
**************
Gilles, Yes, it my hope that the will of the WG, as expressed through the mailing list, will be made clear on this. Brian Gilles Massen wrote, On 04/11/2014 15:28:
Brian,
Without wanting to argue on the local presence for the election, I wanted to know whether you think if the chair-selection-process should be considered a kind of policy (and thus be decided consensus based on the mailing list), or rather something to be managed under the authority of the chair? Or in-between? (...and no, I'm not proposing a PDP to define the process for selecting a process for choosing WG chair - this is not ICANN after all...)
best, Gilles (who is slightly annoyed for having to chose between MAT-wg and anti-abuse-wg...)
On 4/11/2014, 15:04 , Brian Nisbet wrote:
Colleagues,
Apologies for the long delay on this, here is some very slightly revised text. It hasn't diverged much from the text of the 26th of September, but I've taken into account a number of comments that were made, especially around language.
It is still my intention, at least initially, to limit this to the people in the room at a WG session at a RIPE meeting, but obviously this is up to the WG, so we can discuss this tomorrow.
**************
participants (2)
-
Brian Nisbet
-
Gilles Massen