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.
On 11 Dec 2017, at 17:40, William Sylvester via db-wg wrote:
4) One chair per year is replaced.
This caught my eye. It's not clear to me whether this means a: one chair per year stands down and may stand as a candidate for immediate re-selection; or b: one chair per year stands down and may not stand as a candidate for re-selection until some period (to be specified) has elapsed. I think it might avoid future confusion if it were made explicit which of these interpretations is intended. I'm not inclined to prefer either over the other. In case a chair is removed by consensus, will the person involved be excluded from immediately standing as a candidate for re-selection? FWIW, I should think so. Again in case a chair is removed by consensus, will that removal meet the requirement for one chair per year to stand down? It seems to me that, for the sake of continuity, this would be advantageous. I hope this helps. Niall
Niall, Great points, in drafting the intent was that the chair up in the rotation would expire and be up for re-selection where if the chair was not removed by consensus would be eligible to be a candidate for that same slot. A chair could resign or be removed by consensus would trigger a selection process. William On 12/11/17, 4:39 PM, "Niall O'Reilly" <niall.oreilly@ucd.ie> wrote: On 11 Dec 2017, at 17:40, William Sylvester via db-wg wrote: > 4) One chair per year is replaced. This caught my eye. It's not clear to me whether this means a: one chair per year stands down and may stand as a candidate for immediate re-selection; or b: one chair per year stands down and may not stand as a candidate for re-selection until some period (to be specified) has elapsed. I think it might avoid future confusion if it were made explicit which of these interpretations is intended. I'm not inclined to prefer either over the other. In case a chair is removed by consensus, will the person involved be excluded from immediately standing as a candidate for re-selection? FWIW, I should think so. Again in case a chair is removed by consensus, will that removal meet the requirement for one chair per year to stand down? It seems to me that, for the sake of continuity, this would be advantageous. I hope this helps. Niall
Dear Bill, On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 05:40:39PM +0000, William Sylvester via db-wg wrote:
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.
I think the above is an improvement over the current process. Kind regards, Job
William Sylvester via db-wg wrote:
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.
hopefully not too late: Judgement calls about "greatest support" are hard and are open to different opinions, which is synonymous with ambiguity. This is probably something that should be avoided if possible. It might be simpler to specify something like: 9) every year, the longest serving chair will vacate their position. If there are chair-critters who have been in place for the same amount of time, then lots can be drawn as to who gets to resign. This guarantees that the maximum term = maximum number of chairs = 3. The suggestion provides a rotation mechanism which is unambiguous and quite similar in aims to the current proposal, but has no requirement for anyone to make an assessment about who had the more support - which, incidentally, could be assessed as equal in certain situations, in which case there's no tie-breaker. Nick
participants (4)
-
Job Snijders -
Niall O'Reilly -
Nick Hilliard -
William Sylvester