Re: [db-wg] Chair Selection Process Revision Proposal
Hi William, I would like to support the proposed process. (with the additional clarifications of the remarks of Niall.) If a chair would be removed by consensus, he/she should not be accepted for the same position. Regards, Erik Bais From: db-wg <db-wg-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of William Sylvester via db-wg <db-wg@ripe.net> Reply-To: William Sylvester <william.sylvester@addrex.net> Date: Monday 11 December 2017 at 18:41 To: Database WG <db-wg@ripe.net> Subject: [db-wg] Chair Selection Process Revision Proposal WG Members, At the RIPE75 in Dubai, the working group chairs committed to presenting a proposal for revising the chair selection process and general housekeeping of the Database working group. This was motivated from some of the challenges we experienced as a working group over the past year. After taking a review of the other RIPE community working groups, the proposal below represents what we feel Is a fair approach to revise our current processes. This also includes clarification on matters where previously our processes were unclear. This also includes comments and feedback from members of the working group. Please express your support or otherwise for these changes, the intent is to use this process for future chair selection including the pending selection process due. Kind regards, William & Denis DB-WG Co-Chairs Proposed revision to the Database Working Group chair selection process; 1) Number of chairs is a minimum of 2 with a maximum of 3. 2) Chair can be removed at any time by consensus. 3) Chair terms are staggered yearly. 4) One chair per year is replaced. 5) Working group selects chair by consensus. 6) The consensus judgement will be made by the serving WG co-chair(s) and will exclude the co-chair(s) who is the subject of that consensus judgement. 7) Selection process is as follow; 7.1) Interested parties have two weeks to make their interest known via the mailing list, or directly to the Chair/s. 7.2) After two weeks, the Chair/s ensure that all candidates are announced on the mailing list and issue a call for discussion. 7.3) WG members express their approval or otherwise of the presented candidates. 7.4) Two weeks after the call for discussion, the Chair/s declare a decision, based on mailing list discussion, as they would do for a policy proposal. 8) Any appeal over a consensus decision will be heard by the RIPE Chair (or their deputy) whose decision shall be final. 9) In the case more than one chair is up for selection at the same time, the chair with the greatest support will take a multi-year term, the chair with the least support will take the second longest term. Terms will be determined by the number of chairs (3 chairs = 3 year term, 2 chairs = 2 year teams). The intent is to maintain continuity of the working group chairs. So the working group is never left without a chair.
Hi Erik To be honest I don't think we need to make the rules over complex. If a chair is removed by consensus and they stand again, the remaining chairs can take the same consensus that removed the chair as a consensus against that person being reappointed. I think the logic is their without spelling it out. If the remaining chairs did reappoint the removed chair, I'm sure that decision would be overturned on appeal to the RIPE Chair. cheersdenisco-chair DB WG From: Erik Bais via db-wg <db-wg@ripe.net> To: William Sylvester <william.sylvester@addrex.net> Cc: Database WG <db-wg@ripe.net> Sent: Wednesday, 20 December 2017, 12:38 Subject: Re: [db-wg] Chair Selection Process Revision Proposal #yiv5052371919 #yiv5052371919 -- _filtered #yiv5052371919 {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv5052371919 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv5052371919 {font-family:-webkit-standard;panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}#yiv5052371919 #yiv5052371919 p.yiv5052371919MsoNormal, #yiv5052371919 li.yiv5052371919MsoNormal, #yiv5052371919 div.yiv5052371919MsoNormal {margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv5052371919 a:link, #yiv5052371919 span.yiv5052371919MsoHyperlink {color:#0563C1;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv5052371919 a:visited, #yiv5052371919 span.yiv5052371919MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:#954F72;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv5052371919 span.yiv5052371919EmailStyle17 {color:windowtext;}#yiv5052371919 span.yiv5052371919apple-converted-space {}#yiv5052371919 span.yiv5052371919EmailStyle19 {color:windowtext;}#yiv5052371919 span.yiv5052371919msoIns {text-decoration:underline;color:teal;}#yiv5052371919 .yiv5052371919MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} _filtered #yiv5052371919 {margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}#yiv5052371919 div.yiv5052371919WordSection1 {}#yiv5052371919 Hi William, I would like to support the proposed process. (with the additional clarifications of the remarks of Niall.) If a chair would be removed by consensus, he/she should not be accepted for the same position. Regards, Erik Bais From: db-wg <db-wg-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of William Sylvester via db-wg <db-wg@ripe.net> Reply-To: William Sylvester <william.sylvester@addrex.net> Date: Monday 11 December 2017 at 18:41 To: Database WG <db-wg@ripe.net> Subject: [db-wg] Chair Selection Process Revision Proposal WG Members, At the RIPE75 in Dubai, the working group chairs committed to presenting a proposal for revising the chair selection process and general housekeeping of the Database working group. This was motivated from some of the challenges we experienced as a working group over the past year. After taking a review of the other RIPE community working groups, the proposal below represents what we feel Is a fair approach to revise our current processes. This also includes clarification on matters where previously our processes were unclear. This also includes comments and feedback from members of the working group. Please express your support or otherwise for these changes, the intent is to use this process for future chair selection including the pending selection process due. Kind regards, William & Denis DB-WG Co-Chairs Proposed revision to the Database Working Group chair selection process; 1) Number of chairs is a minimum of 2 with a maximum of 3. 2) Chair can be removed at any time by consensus. 3) Chair terms are staggered yearly. 4) One chair per year is replaced. 5) Working group selects chair by consensus. 6) The consensus judgement will be made by the serving WG co-chair(s) and will exclude the co-chair(s) who is the subject of that consensus judgement. 7) Selection process is as follow; 7.1) Interested parties have two weeks to make their interest known via the mailing list, or directly to the Chair/s. 7.2) After two weeks, the Chair/s ensure that all candidates are announced on the mailing list and issue a call for discussion. 7.3) WG members express their approval or otherwise of the presented candidates. 7.4) Two weeks after the call for discussion, the Chair/s declare a decision, based on mailing list discussion, as they would do for a policy proposal. 8) Any appeal over a consensus decision will be heard by the RIPE Chair (or their deputy) whose decision shall be final. 9) In the case more than one chair is up for selection at the same time, the chair with the greatest support will take a multi-year term, the chair with the least support will take the second longest term. Terms will be determined by the number of chairs (3 chairs = 3 year term, 2 chairs = 2 year teams). The intent is to maintain continuity of the working group chairs. So the working group is never left without a chair.
Not complex at all: 4.5) any member of the RIPE Community may stand for chair, unless that person has been removed from the position of working group chair in the last 3 years. Nick denis walker via db-wg wrote:
Hi Erik
To be honest I don't think we need to make the rules over complex. If a chair is removed by consensus and they stand again, the remaining chairs can take the same consensus that removed the chair as a consensus against that person being reappointed. I think the logic is their without spelling it out.
If the remaining chairs did reappoint the removed chair, I'm sure that decision would be overturned on appeal to the RIPE Chair.
cheers denis co-chair DB WG
------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:* Erik Bais via db-wg <db-wg@ripe.net> *To:* William Sylvester <william.sylvester@addrex.net> *Cc:* Database WG <db-wg@ripe.net> *Sent:* Wednesday, 20 December 2017, 12:38 *Subject:* Re: [db-wg] Chair Selection Process Revision Proposal
Hi William,
I would like to support the proposed process. (with the additional clarifications of the remarks of Niall.)
If a chair would be removed by consensus, he/she should not be accepted for the same position.
Regards, Erik Bais
*From: *db-wg <db-wg-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of William Sylvester via db-wg <db-wg@ripe.net> *Reply-To: *William Sylvester <william.sylvester@addrex.net> *Date: *Monday 11 December 2017 at 18:41 *To: *Database WG <db-wg@ripe.net> *Subject: *[db-wg] Chair Selection Process Revision Proposal
WG Members,
At the RIPE75 in Dubai, the working group chairs committed to presenting a proposal for revising the chair selection process and general housekeeping of the Database working group. This was motivated from some of the challenges we experienced as a working group over the past year. After taking a review of the other RIPE community working groups, the proposal below represents what we feel Is a fair approach to revise our current processes. This also includes clarification on matters where previously our processes were unclear. This also includes comments and feedback from members of the working group.
Please express your support or otherwise for these changes, the intent is to use this process for future chair selection including the pending selection process due.
Kind regards,
William & Denis DB-WG Co-Chairs
Proposed revision to the Database Working Group chair selection process;
1) Number of chairs is a minimum of 2 with a maximum of 3. 2) Chair can be removed at any time by consensus. 3) Chair terms are staggered yearly. 4) One chair per year is replaced. 5) Working group selects chair by consensus. 6) The consensus judgement will be made by the serving WG co-chair(s) and will exclude the co-chair(s) who is the subject of that consensus judgement. 7) Selection process is as follow; 7.1) Interested parties have two weeks to make their interest known via the mailing list, or directly to the Chair/s. 7.2) After two weeks, the Chair/s ensure that all candidates are announced on the mailing list and issue a call for discussion. 7.3) WG members express their approval or otherwise of the presented candidates. 7.4) Two weeks after the call for discussion, the Chair/s declare a decision, based on mailing list discussion, as they would do for a policy proposal. 8) Any appeal over a consensus decision will be heard by the RIPE Chair (or their deputy) whose decision shall be final. 9) In the case more than one chair is up for selection at the same time, the chair with the greatest support will take a multi-year term, the chair with the least support will take the second longest term. Terms will be determined by the number of chairs (3 chairs = 3 year term, 2 chairs = 2 year teams). The intent is to maintain continuity of the working group chairs. So the working group is never left without a chair.
participants (3)
-
denis walker -
Erik Bais -
Nick Hilliard