Hi Jim,
As I had previously mentioned, I was surprised to find that from the outset (as in, from before even the close of the WG session), there had been a decision made by more vocal members of the community. This had continued prior to even the anticipated close of nominations, excluding even the planned subsequent exchanges over issues and visions of the future of the WG. I have been impressed with the comments on Corinne in this regard, and would have rather she put in for nomination in retrospect. However, by now the space has narrowed, and I don't anticipate that any productive conversation will result from continuing or restarting.
I have been suprised about the positions and modes of intracommunity interaction in this WG, which should otherwise run contrary to its cooperative mandate – in particular some of the exchanges during the meeting itself. My interest was simply in using the connections that I have accumulated through my professional work and travels in order to bridge the RIPE community with relevant and nascent partners that would otherwise be unaware of the opportunities to collaborate with its members. I would be happy to continue to support future WGs chairs in recommending partners, but am no longer interested in the chair position as a result of the politics involved.
Julf has a history of contributions in the field of privacy that I was aware of even before I had the opportunity to meet him in the Amsterdam meeting. I am happy to see that of all people he was willing to step up, and I wish him the best in Coop WG.
Best of luck in this transition.
Cordially,
Collin