Hello dear friends!
Let's parse this out. The necessary but not sufficient conditions for any candidate are, roughly
- They can afford to come to RIPE;
- They are willing to come to RIPE;
- They have enthusiasm and relevant expertise on issues important to the RIPE community.
We have three people (and maybe more -- speak up!) who meet this criteria.
Beyond this, there are many things that could make a great candidate. But unless we can manifest a human out of mud and thin air, we may have to accept a candidate that doesn't embody all of the qualities on various stakeholders' wish lists.
Keeping with the discussion of practical reality, I currently have a very demanding job, and increasingly limited time. I care about RIPE and I'm not comfortable being the single point of failure for a WG whose role is so important to the RIPE community. In other words, I need co-chair. Full stop.
Given this, I think a productive direction for this discussion would go something like this:
- Openly and kindly ask the current candidates questions, helping those on the list understand their qualifications more deeply, and assess their abilities and interests.
- If you have a good lead, provide concrete suggestions for other candidates.
- And, of course, if the process doesn't sit right, speak up with concrete suggestions on how it can be changed. The current process was written by me. It uses language the way I use it. It's almost certainly imperfect (appointment, election, choice -- whichever word you want!). I'm more than happy to discuss this.
Thanks,
Meredith