Database Working Group Chair Selection
Fellow working group members, We currently have two slots open, the first is Denis’s term has come to an end. In keeping with our continuity plan to have chairs on a three year rotation offset yearly. The other open slot has two years remaining as a term. We have two candidates currently for these open slots with preferences as indicated; Denis Walker, two year term David Tatlisu, three year term I encourage each candidate to post any statements they wish to make directly to the working group. This notice serves as the candidate announcement and call for discussion. Thanks, William DB-WG Co-Chair Our current chair process is as revised in 2017, as follows; 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.
Hello everyone, I am David, the second co-chair candidate. 20 years old, located in Berlin, I work as a network engineer for a large hosting company. Some of you may have already met me at a local beering or a RIPE meeting. I've already talked to Denis and William about the position, what happens behind the scenes, and what is expected. I also got additional tips and information from Franziska and Mirjam and plan to take part in the upcoming co-chair training program. Some of my goals as a co-chair would be - To support the moderation of the mailing list and facilitate working group tasks - Promote active discussion, sending summary emails to make the content easier to follow - Perform community outreach to raise awareness of this working group and the policy process Please do not hesitate to ask me any question or to give feedback. Regards, David On 6/8/23 17:30, William Sylvester via db-wg wrote:
Fellow working group members,
We currently have two slots open, the first is Denis’s term has come to an end. In keeping with our continuity plan to have chairs on a three year rotation offset yearly. The other open slot has two years remaining as a term. We have two candidates currently for these open slots with preferences as indicated;
Denis Walker, two year term
David Tatlisu, three year term
I encourage each candidate to post any statements they wish to make directly to the working group.
This notice serves as the candidate announcement and call for discussion.
Thanks,
William
DB-WG Co-Chair
Our current chair process is as revised in 2017, as follows;
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) Workinggroup 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) Selectionprocess 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 workinggroupchairs. So the workinggroup is never left without a chair.
Some of my goals as a co-chair would be - To support the moderation of the mailing list and facilitate working group tasks - Promote active discussion, sending summary emails to make the content easier to follow - Perform community outreach to raise awareness of this working group and the policy process
/me likes. simple, but what a chair should be doing. leave personal agendas at the door. randy
On 2023 Jun 09 (Fri) at 06:37:13 -0700 (-0700), Randy Bush via db-wg wrote: :> Some of my goals as a co-chair would be :> - To support the moderation of the mailing list and facilitate working :> group tasks :> - Promote active discussion, sending summary emails to make the :> content easier to follow :> - Perform community outreach to raise awareness of this working group :> and the policy process : :/me likes. simple, but what a chair should be doing. leave personal :agendas at the door. : +1 -peter
On 09/06/2023 15:37, Randy Bush via db-wg wrote:
Some of my goals as a co-chair would be - To support the moderation of the mailing list and facilitate working group tasks - Promote active discussion, sending summary emails to make the content easier to follow - Perform community outreach to raise awareness of this working group and the policy process
/me likes. simple, but what a chair should be doing. leave personal agendas at the door.
+1 Ciao, Massimo
Hi Randy That would be fine if we had a very active and engaging community. Like we had 20 years ago. But the vast vast vast majority of this community is silent on almost all database matters. The vocal people are a handful of well known members of the community, whose views on many matters are also quite well known. Sometimes someone raises a point and it gets little or no response. Like assigning an allocation. Often the chairs know from face to face discussions, people want this option. But there is no discussion. In situations like this I've found that a chair needs to drive the discussion. Even if that means making an outrageous suggestion that no one will agree to, but it generates a reaction. From the following discussion we can move forward. Also sometimes a chair needs to throw ideas out into the community to move the service forwards. The chairs talk with the NCC engineers. We often discuss ideas that no one in the community is thinking about. If the chairs don't then raise it with the community the idea can never be considered. So either the chairs or the NCC engineers need to be able to put ideas into the public domain, and sometimes drive the discussion to get it started, or technically and socially the database as a product and service just stagnates. I often take on this role, as well as the devil's advocate to question what others say. I don't see it as pushing a personal agenda. I have no personal agenda. It doesn't matter to me personally if the database evolves or dies. It does matter to the industry and society. I have no employer or financial interest in how the database evolves. I can look at each issue and consider how it fits in with that old saying...for the good of the Internet. This is one of the reasons why I've put myself forward again as a chair for another couple of years. I hope in that time David can spearhead a new generation of WG chairs. Then dinosaurs like myself (and others) can ascend into advisory positions instead of decision making roles. Cheers Denis On Fri, 9 Jun 2023, 15:37 Randy Bush via db-wg, <db-wg@ripe.net> wrote:
Some of my goals as a co-chair would be - To support the moderation of the mailing list and facilitate working group tasks - Promote active discussion, sending summary emails to make the content easier to follow - Perform community outreach to raise awareness of this working group and the policy process
/me likes. simple, but what a chair should be doing. leave personal agendas at the door.
randy
--
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/db-wg
That would be fine if we had a very active and engaging community. Like we had 20 years ago. But the vast vast vast majority of this community is silent on almost all database matters. The vocal people are a handful of well known members of the community, whose views on many matters are also quite well known.
Sometimes someone raises a point and it gets little or no response. Like assigning an allocation. Often the chairs know from face to face discussions, people want this option. But there is no discussion. In situations like this I've found that a chair needs to drive the discussion. Even if that means making an outrageous suggestion that no one will agree to, but it generates a reaction. From the following discussion we can move forward.
Also sometimes a chair needs to throw ideas out into the community to move the service forwards. The chairs talk with the NCC engineers. We often discuss ideas that no one in the community is thinking about. If the chairs don't then raise it with the community the idea can never be considered.
So either the chairs or the NCC engineers need to be able to put ideas into the public domain, and sometimes drive the discussion to get it started, or technically and socially the database as a product and service just stagnates.
I often take on this role, as well as the devil's advocate to question what others say. I don't see it as pushing a personal agenda. I have no personal agenda. It doesn't matter to me personally if the database evolves or dies. It does matter to the industry and society. I have no employer or financial interest in how the database evolves. I can look at each issue and consider how it fits in with that old saying...for the good of the Internet.
This is one of the reasons why I've put myself forward again as a chair for another couple of years. I hope in that time David can spearhead a new generation of WG chairs. Then dinosaurs like myself (and others) can ascend into advisory positions instead of decision making roles.
Cheers Denis
QED randy
Hi Randy On Fri, 9 Jun 2023 at 20:42, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
That would be fine if we had a very active and engaging community. Like we had 20 years ago. But the vast vast vast majority of this community is silent on almost all database matters. The vocal people are a handful of well known members of the community, whose views on many matters are also quite well known.
Sometimes someone raises a point and it gets little or no response. Like assigning an allocation. Often the chairs know from face to face discussions, people want this option. But there is no discussion. In situations like this I've found that a chair needs to drive the discussion. Even if that means making an outrageous suggestion that no one will agree to, but it generates a reaction. From the following discussion we can move forward.
Also sometimes a chair needs to throw ideas out into the community to move the service forwards. The chairs talk with the NCC engineers. We often discuss ideas that no one in the community is thinking about. If the chairs don't then raise it with the community the idea can never be considered.
So either the chairs or the NCC engineers need to be able to put ideas into the public domain, and sometimes drive the discussion to get it started, or technically and socially the database as a product and service just stagnates.
I often take on this role, as well as the devil's advocate to question what others say. I don't see it as pushing a personal agenda. I have no personal agenda. It doesn't matter to me personally if the database evolves or dies. It does matter to the industry and society. I have no employer or financial interest in how the database evolves. I can look at each issue and consider how it fits in with that old saying...for the good of the Internet.
This is one of the reasons why I've put myself forward again as a chair for another couple of years. I hope in that time David can spearhead a new generation of WG chairs. Then dinosaurs like myself (and others) can ascend into advisory positions instead of decision making roles.
Cheers Denis
QED
Your argument has not been demonstrated Randy. David has the right idea and I also like his goals. But it is not, as you stated, "simple" to achieve this. 'facilitate working group tasks' 'Promote active discussion' 'make the content easier to follow' How do you think this actually happens in practice Randy? What do the chairs do if there is no discussion? What if there is no content to summarise. Do we leave 'our agendas' at the door and 'simply' close all the NWIs because no one has commented in the first/last two months since the issue was raised? Life, society, this industry and yes, even the DB-WG, have all evolved over the last 20 years. We have archives of the mailing lists. Look back at all the NWIs since NWI-1. How many of them never got off the ground, or were dying inconclusively, until the chairs breathed some life back into the discussion or started it? This is the reality of the 2020s. Most people read but don't comment. To generate comments to get a range of opinions from different people (more than cryptic one liners) often needs someone to trigger a reaction from them. A chair needs to say something, push an opinion or drive the discussion in some way in order to get these other views and opinions so we can have a consensus. Maybe some other WGs have more active discussions naturally. That doesn't happen very often with the DB-WG. Maybe we can adopt this idea of yours Randy, where all the chairs say nothing, don't comment, don't intervene, don't offer any advice based on knowledge and experience. Just sit back and moderate 'the discussion', if there is any. This also means not going out into the community or on the mailing list and trying to get people involved in the DB-WG. That is driving an agenda that you say we should leave at the door. It would be an easy life for the chairs. There would be very few new NWIs and little discussion on those we do have. It may even make my presentation at RIPE 86 on Managing the RIPE Database even more significant as a way forward. cheers denis
randy
Database working group members, The discussion period has now closed for the chair selection. This notice is to confirm that Denis Walker has been selected for the two year term seat, while David Tatlisu has been selected for the three year seat. We welcome David to the chair team and look forward to having his support for our working group. Best regards, William DB-WG Co-Chair ________________________________ From: William Sylvester <william.sylvester@addrex.net> Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 11:30 AM To: db-wg <db-wg@ripe.net> Subject: Database Working Group Chair Selection Fellow working group members, We currently have two slots open, the first is Denis’s term has come to an end. In keeping with our continuity plan to have chairs on a three year rotation offset yearly. The other open slot has two years remaining as a term. We have two candidates currently for these open slots with preferences as indicated; Denis Walker, two year term David Tatlisu, three year term I encourage each candidate to post any statements they wish to make directly to the working group. This notice serves as the candidate announcement and call for discussion. Thanks, William DB-WG Co-Chair Our current chair process is as revised in 2017, as follows; 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 (6)
-
David Tatlisu -
denis walker -
Massimo Candela -
Peter Hessler -
Randy Bush -
William Sylvester