Hi All I would like to clarify one point about my candidacy. Whilst it is no secret that I would love to improve the database design and model, that is a personal view and I accept that it is not well supported within the community. There is a time and place for such proposals and this is not the time. The next group of chairs have a growing list of important issues on the table already and that should be the focus. cheersdenis
Dear WG We have reached the end of the proposal phase of the WG Chair selection process and have 4 candidates (in alphabetical order of surname) David Hilario Piotr Strzyżewski William Sylvester Denis Walker Since Piotr is standing again it has been deemed better if he stands back from the process at this point and hands over to me. We are looking for three chairs and I would now invite expressions of support (or otherwise) for the four candidates above. If you have already expressed support then there is no need to do so again. Remember we do not count votes, we are looking for the same sort of consensus that we are looking for when considering a policy proposal. At the end of two weeks from this announcement we will close the discussion and move on to the next phase. As a reminder, if we still have more than 3 candidates at that stage I will invite one or more of the candidates to consider withdrawing their self nomination. If none are willing to do so then we will draw names out of a hat until we have filled the three co-chair positions. Best regards Nigel
I am happy to support all of the candidates, though I would specifically like Piotr to remain a WG Chair to provide continuity Ian -----Original Message----- From: db-wg [mailto:db-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Nigel Titley Sent: 16 November 2016 11:54 To: db-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [db-wg] WG Chairs Selection Dear WG We have reached the end of the proposal phase of the WG Chair selection process and have 4 candidates (in alphabetical order of surname) David Hilario Piotr Strzyżewski William Sylvester Denis Walker Since Piotr is standing again it has been deemed better if he stands back from the process at this point and hands over to me. We are looking for three chairs and I would now invite expressions of support (or otherwise) for the four candidates above. If you have already expressed support then there is no need to do so again. Remember we do not count votes, we are looking for the same sort of consensus that we are looking for when considering a policy proposal. At the end of two weeks from this announcement we will close the discussion and move on to the next phase. As a reminder, if we still have more than 3 candidates at that stage I will invite one or more of the candidates to consider withdrawing their self nomination. If none are willing to do so then we will draw names out of a hat until we have filled the three co-chair positions. Best regards Nigel Information in this email including any attachments may be privileged, confidential and is intended exclusively for the addressee. The views expressed may not be official policy, but the personal views of the originator. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete it from your system. You should not reproduce, distribute, store, retransmit, use or disclose its contents to anyone. Please note we reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communication through our internal and external networks. SKY and the SKY marks are trademarks of Sky plc and Sky International AG and are used under licence. Sky UK Limited (Registration No. 2906991), Sky-In-Home Service Limited (Registration No. 2067075) and Sky Subscribers Services Limited (Registration No. 2340150) are direct or indirect subsidiaries of Sky plc (Registration No. 2247735). All of the companies mentioned in this paragraph are incorporated in England and Wales and share the same registered office at Grant Way, Isleworth, Middlesex TW7 5QD.
Nigel Titley wrote:
We are looking for three chairs and I would now invite expressions of support (or otherwise) for the four candidates above. If you have already expressed support then there is no need to do so again. Remember we do not count votes, we are looking for the same sort of consensus that we are looking for when considering a policy proposal.
As a good deal of the work associated with chairing a working group involves liaising with people, my preference would be for candidates who are regular RIPE meeting attendees. Piotr has previously done an excellent job as chair, so I'd like to see him staying in there. I'd also be happy to support Bill, who is a regular at RIPE meetings (and particularly as he comes from the largest country in the RIPE NCC service region). Nick
Dear All: I like to express my support for David, David was the hostmaster we worked with back his RIPE NCC time, he was smart, has deep understanding to the policy, and guided our understanding of RIR every step of the way. I talked to David from time to time as friends and colleagues in the community, I was always inspired by his deep knowledge of database, policy, and the know-how about the community as a whole. I trust him will be good chair for the community, and he's new job will ensure him not only engaging database on daily basis, but also be able to attending any future RIPE meetings. Hope above helps. Thank you. With regards. Lu On 17 November 2016 at 16:00, Janos Zsako <zsako@iszt.hu> wrote:
Dear all,
Piotr has previously done an excellent job as chair, so I'd like to see
him staying in there.
I agree with Nick, I also support Piotr.
Best regards, Janos
Nick
-- -- Kind regards. Lu
Dear WG It is now two weeks since we entered the review phase and we still have four candidates David Hilario Piotr Strzyżewski William Sylvester Denis Walker In my view nothing has been raised by any member of the WG that disqualifies any of these four from standing. Since we have four candidates for the three co-chair positions available I would like to take us to the next phase of the process which is to ask the four candidates if any of them would like to step down. In particular I would like them to consider whether they have: 1) The approval of their employer and/or the resources to attend the majority of RIPE meetings during their term of office. 2) The time and resource available to properly monitor the mailing list between RIPE meetings. 3) A sufficient knowledge of the RIPE Database to enable them to adequately understand and comment on proposals that the WG may make 4) The temperament to deal with members of the WG who may get very passionate about technical matters related to the DB, may not have English as their first language and may have different ideas on what constitutes reasonable debate. 5) An understanding of the Policy Development Process (although the WG has not developed policy for a long while, such knowledge is part of the equipment of any WG chair). Candidates have three days to consider these questions and either stand down or continue. If they wish to stand down they may either do so on the list or by direct email to me and I will relay it in a neutral fashion to the list. At the end of three days, if no candidate has taken a decision to stand down, I will invoke the random selection process. This is likely to take place during next week when the Board and RIPE Chair are available in Amsterdam and a suitable hat and witnesses may be procured. Best regards Nigel
Nigel, Thank you for your email. I do have the approval and support of my employer to both dedicated the time and resources (including attending the meetings in person). I do have the time, ability, and experience as you have described. And am familiar with the processes for the community and the PDP. With the support I have had on the mailing list and from others who have reached out privately, I would like to continue in consideration for this role to support this working group. Best regards, William
On Dec 6, 2016, at 2:08 PM, Nigel Titley <nigel@titley.com> wrote:
Dear WG
It is now two weeks since we entered the review phase and we still have four candidates
David Hilario Piotr Strzyżewski William Sylvester Denis Walker
In my view nothing has been raised by any member of the WG that disqualifies any of these four from standing.
Since we have four candidates for the three co-chair positions available I would like to take us to the next phase of the process which is to ask the four candidates if any of them would like to step down. In particular I would like them to consider whether they have:
1) The approval of their employer and/or the resources to attend the majority of RIPE meetings during their term of office.
2) The time and resource available to properly monitor the mailing list between RIPE meetings.
3) A sufficient knowledge of the RIPE Database to enable them to adequately understand and comment on proposals that the WG may make
4) The temperament to deal with members of the WG who may get very passionate about technical matters related to the DB, may not have English as their first language and may have different ideas on what constitutes reasonable debate.
5) An understanding of the Policy Development Process (although the WG has not developed policy for a long while, such knowledge is part of the equipment of any WG chair).
Candidates have three days to consider these questions and either stand down or continue. If they wish to stand down they may either do so on the list or by direct email to me and I will relay it in a neutral fashion to the list.
At the end of three days, if no candidate has taken a decision to stand down, I will invoke the random selection process. This is likely to take place during next week when the Board and RIPE Chair are available in Amsterdam and a suitable hat and witnesses may be procured.
Best regards
Nigel
On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 07:08:39PM +0000, Nigel Titley wrote: Dear Nigel and WG, Thanks for conducting the selection process.
Since we have four candidates for the three co-chair positions available I would like to take us to the next phase of the process which is to ask the four candidates if any of them would like to step down. In particular I would like them to consider whether they have:
1) The approval of their employer and/or the resources to attend the majority of RIPE meetings during their term of office.
2) The time and resource available to properly monitor the mailing list between RIPE meetings.
3) A sufficient knowledge of the RIPE Database to enable them to adequately understand and comment on proposals that the WG may make
4) The temperament to deal with members of the WG who may get very passionate about technical matters related to the DB, may not have English as their first language and may have different ideas on what constitutes reasonable debate.
5) An understanding of the Policy Development Process (although the WG has not developed policy for a long while, such knowledge is part of the equipment of any WG chair).
Candidates have three days to consider these questions and either stand down or continue. If they wish to stand down they may either do so on the list or by direct email to me and I will relay it in a neutral fashion to the list.
I would like to continue with being the candidate for DB-WG co-chair for the next term. I do have the approval of my employer and other resources as well as knowledge to serve as the co-chair of this group.
At the end of three days, if no candidate has taken a decision to stand down, I will invoke the random selection process. This is likely to take place during next week when the Board and RIPE Chair are available in Amsterdam and a suitable hat and witnesses may be procured.
Is there any video recording of the random selection process going to be performed or just the proceedings are expected? All the best, Piotr -- gucio -> Piotr Strzyżewski E-mail: Piotr.Strzyzewski@polsl.pl
On 09/12/16 21:50, Piotr Strzyzewski wrote:
On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 07:08:39PM +0000, Nigel Titley wrote:
Dear Nigel and WG,
Thanks for conducting the selection process.
Since we have four candidates for the three co-chair positions available I would like to take us to the next phase of the process which is to ask the four candidates if any of them would like to step down. In particular I would like them to consider whether they have:
1) The approval of their employer and/or the resources to attend the majority of RIPE meetings during their term of office.
2) The time and resource available to properly monitor the mailing list between RIPE meetings.
3) A sufficient knowledge of the RIPE Database to enable them to adequately understand and comment on proposals that the WG may make
4) The temperament to deal with members of the WG who may get very passionate about technical matters related to the DB, may not have English as their first language and may have different ideas on what constitutes reasonable debate.
5) An understanding of the Policy Development Process (although the WG has not developed policy for a long while, such knowledge is part of the equipment of any WG chair).
Candidates have three days to consider these questions and either stand down or continue. If they wish to stand down they may either do so on the list or by direct email to me and I will relay it in a neutral fashion to the list.
I would like to continue with being the candidate for DB-WG co-chair for the next term. I do have the approval of my employer and other resources as well as knowledge to serve as the co-chair of this group.
At the end of three days, if no candidate has taken a decision to stand down, I will invoke the random selection process. This is likely to take place during next week when the Board and RIPE Chair are available in Amsterdam and a suitable hat and witnesses may be procured.
Is there any video recording of the random selection process going to be performed or just the proceedings are expected?
I'm sure we can video it if you want... Nigel
Nigel, At 2016-12-09 23:50:42 +0000 Nigel Titley <nigel@titley.com> wrote:
On 09/12/16 21:50, Piotr Strzyzewski wrote:
Is there any video recording of the random selection process going to be performed or just the proceedings are expected?
I'm sure we can video it if you want...
Surely we should be using a process similar to the IETF NomCom: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3797 All we need are sources of randomness. The IETF used these most recently: https://datatracker.ietf.org/nomcom/ann/85656/ Perhaps we could use entries meaningful to the RIPE database as seeds, using some agreed-upon day in the future as to when we get the values. * Number of RIPE Database objects in this file: ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/dbase/ripe.db.gz * Average number of RIPE database queries on the 5 minutes average on this page: https://www.ripe.net/analyse/statistics/ripe-database/ripedb-queries * And maybe something like the "Number of addresses announced to the Internet" from this report: http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/london/data-summary Just a thought. ;) -- Shane
Dear Working Group The random selection process was carried out yesterday after the EB meeting, using a hat loaned by Axel, overseen by the Ripe Chair, with actual drawing done by Salaam. A video is available for those of a mistrusting nature. The three names drawn from the hat were David Hilario William Sylvester Denis Walker May I congratulate the three winners. I will now stand down as co-chair of the WG. However if I may be permitted a few final remarks before leaving I suggest that the three co chairs co-opt Piotr immediately as assistant to the co-chairs (if he is willing) I suggest that the chair selection process is revised so that the term of the chairs is extended to three years and one stands down each year to prevent the sort of mass upheaval that have seen this time. Apart from that, make changes as you see fit. I suggest that a suitable scribe be requested from the RIPE NCC to replace me. I've been doing it for getting on for 20 years and I've had enough :-) I wish you all well for the future. I will continue to lurk so don't misbehave. All the best Nigel Sent from my iPad On 6 Dec 2016, at 20:08, Nigel Titley <nigel@titley.com> wrote:
Dear WG
It is now two weeks since we entered the review phase and we still have four candidates
David Hilario Piotr Strzyżewski William Sylvester Denis Walker
In my view nothing has been raised by any member of the WG that disqualifies any of these four from standing.
Since we have four candidates for the three co-chair positions available I would like to take us to the next phase of the process which is to ask the four candidates if any of them would like to step down. In particular I would like them to consider whether they have:
1) The approval of their employer and/or the resources to attend the majority of RIPE meetings during their term of office.
2) The time and resource available to properly monitor the mailing list between RIPE meetings.
3) A sufficient knowledge of the RIPE Database to enable them to adequately understand and comment on proposals that the WG may make
4) The temperament to deal with members of the WG who may get very passionate about technical matters related to the DB, may not have English as their first language and may have different ideas on what constitutes reasonable debate.
5) An understanding of the Policy Development Process (although the WG has not developed policy for a long while, such knowledge is part of the equipment of any WG chair).
Candidates have three days to consider these questions and either stand down or continue. If they wish to stand down they may either do so on the list or by direct email to me and I will relay it in a neutral fashion to the list.
At the end of three days, if no candidate has taken a decision to stand down, I will invoke the random selection process. This is likely to take place during next week when the Board and RIPE Chair are available in Amsterdam and a suitable hat and witnesses may be procured.
Best regards
Nigel
Thanks Nigel. I would like to thank you for overseeing this process and for the decades of service you have given to the DB-WG. I would also like to thank Piotr and Job for the work they have done over the last few years. I hope to continue the tradition of supporting the community as all you guys have done. Cheers Denis On 16 Dec 2016 11:46 a.m., "Nigel Titley" <nigel@titley.com> wrote: Dear Working Group The random selection process was carried out yesterday after the EB meeting, using a hat loaned by Axel, overseen by the Ripe Chair, with actual drawing done by Salaam. A video is available for those of a mistrusting nature. The three names drawn from the hat were David Hilario William Sylvester Denis Walker May I congratulate the three winners. I will now stand down as co-chair of the WG. However if I may be permitted a few final remarks before leaving I suggest that the three co chairs co-opt Piotr immediately as assistant to the co-chairs (if he is willing) I suggest that the chair selection process is revised so that the term of the chairs is extended to three years and one stands down each year to prevent the sort of mass upheaval that have seen this time. Apart from that, make changes as you see fit. I suggest that a suitable scribe be requested from the RIPE NCC to replace me. I've been doing it for getting on for 20 years and I've had enough :-) I wish you all well for the future. I will continue to lurk so don't misbehave. All the best Nigel Sent from my iPad On 6 Dec 2016, at 20:08, Nigel Titley <nigel@titley.com> wrote:
Dear WG
It is now two weeks since we entered the review phase and we still have four candidates
David Hilario Piotr Strzyżewski William Sylvester Denis Walker
In my view nothing has been raised by any member of the WG that disqualifies any of these four from standing.
Since we have four candidates for the three co-chair positions available I would like to take us to the next phase of the process which is to ask the four candidates if any of them would like to step down. In particular I would like them to consider whether they have:
1) The approval of their employer and/or the resources to attend the majority of RIPE meetings during their term of office.
2) The time and resource available to properly monitor the mailing list between RIPE meetings.
3) A sufficient knowledge of the RIPE Database to enable them to adequately understand and comment on proposals that the WG may make
4) The temperament to deal with members of the WG who may get very passionate about technical matters related to the DB, may not have English as their first language and may have different ideas on what constitutes reasonable debate.
5) An understanding of the Policy Development Process (although the WG has not developed policy for a long while, such knowledge is part of the equipment of any WG chair).
Candidates have three days to consider these questions and either stand down or continue. If they wish to stand down they may either do so on the list or by direct email to me and I will relay it in a neutral fashion to the list.
At the end of three days, if no candidate has taken a decision to stand down, I will invoke the random selection process. This is likely to take place during next week when the Board and RIPE Chair are available in Amsterdam and a suitable hat and witnesses may be procured.
Best regards
Nigel
Dear all, Thank you all your support. I am looking forward to work with William and Denis on the future development of the RIPE Database. Kind regards,David Hilario On Friday, December 16, 2016 3:05 PM, den is <denis1@gmail.com> wrote: Thanks Nigel. I would like to thank you for overseeing this process and for the decades of service you have given to the DB-WG. I would also like to thank Piotr and Job for the work they have done over the last few years. I hope to continue the tradition of supporting the community as all you guys have done. CheersDenis On 16 Dec 2016 11:46 a.m., "Nigel Titley" <nigel@titley.com> wrote: Dear Working Group The random selection process was carried out yesterday after the EB meeting, using a hat loaned by Axel, overseen by the Ripe Chair, with actual drawing done by Salaam. A video is available for those of a mistrusting nature. The three names drawn from the hat were David Hilario William Sylvester Denis Walker May I congratulate the three winners. I will now stand down as co-chair of the WG. However if I may be permitted a few final remarks before leaving I suggest that the three co chairs co-opt Piotr immediately as assistant to the co-chairs (if he is willing) I suggest that the chair selection process is revised so that the term of the chairs is extended to three years and one stands down each year to prevent the sort of mass upheaval that have seen this time. Apart from that, make changes as you see fit. I suggest that a suitable scribe be requested from the RIPE NCC to replace me. I've been doing it for getting on for 20 years and I've had enough :-) I wish you all well for the future. I will continue to lurk so don't misbehave. All the best Nigel Sent from my iPad On 6 Dec 2016, at 20:08, Nigel Titley <nigel@titley.com> wrote:
Dear WG
It is now two weeks since we entered the review phase and we still have four candidates
David Hilario Piotr Strzyżewski William Sylvester Denis Walker
In my view nothing has been raised by any member of the WG that disqualifies any of these four from standing.
Since we have four candidates for the three co-chair positions available I would like to take us to the next phase of the process which is to ask the four candidates if any of them would like to step down. In particular I would like them to consider whether they have:
1) The approval of their employer and/or the resources to attend the majority of RIPE meetings during their term of office.
2) The time and resource available to properly monitor the mailing list between RIPE meetings.
3) A sufficient knowledge of the RIPE Database to enable them to adequately understand and comment on proposals that the WG may make
4) The temperament to deal with members of the WG who may get very passionate about technical matters related to the DB, may not have English as their first language and may have different ideas on what constitutes reasonable debate.
5) An understanding of the Policy Development Process (although the WG has not developed policy for a long while, such knowledge is part of the equipment of any WG chair).
Candidates have three days to consider these questions and either stand down or continue. If they wish to stand down they may either do so on the list or by direct email to me and I will relay it in a neutral fashion to the list.
At the end of three days, if no candidate has taken a decision to stand down, I will invoke the random selection process. This is likely to take place during next week when the Board and RIPE Chair are available in Amsterdam and a suitable hat and witnesses may be procured.
Best regards
Nigel
On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 11:46:24AM +0100, Nigel Titley wrote: Dear Nigel & DB-WG Members,
The random selection process was carried out yesterday after the EB meeting, using a hat loaned by Axel, overseen by the Ripe Chair, with actual drawing done by Salaam. A video is available for those of a mistrusting nature.
First of all, let me thank you for conducting this selection process in the neutral and professional manner.
The three names drawn from the hat were
David Hilario William Sylvester Denis Walker
I would like to congratulate all three winners and wish you all good luck in this not-so-easy task of being WG Chair.
May I congratulate the three winners.
I will now stand down as co-chair of the WG. However if I may be permitted a few final remarks before leaving
I suggest that the three co chairs co-opt Piotr immediately as assistant to the co-chairs (if he is willing)
You can count on me.
I suggest that a suitable scribe be requested from the RIPE NCC to replace me. I've been doing it for getting on for 20 years and I've had enough :-)
Thank you for this hard work. It was always amazing how fast delivered and accurate your minutes are. All the best, Piotr -- gucio -> Piotr Strzyżewski E-mail: Piotr.Strzyzewski@polsl.pl
participants (11)
-
den is -
Dickinson, Ian -
fransossen＠yahoo.com -
Janos Zsako -
Lu Heng -
Nick Hilliard -
Nigel Titley -
Piotr Strzyzewski -
ripedenis＠yahoo.co.uk -
Shane Kerr -
William Sylvester