Colleagues, there's been very little response or discussion about the procedure which was proposed at the beginning of October.
I think it's now time to start a "Last Call" on this. If anyone has any tweaks to he proposed text or counter proposals, please speak up now! It would be helpful if any changes are accompanied by suggested replacement text and an explanation. Simply saying "I don't like Clause Foo" is not helpful or productive: please say why you don't like that clause and provide replacement text.
Since the PDP uses 4 weeks for its Last Call phase, let's do the same here. So if there are no changes or comments on the suggested text by the end of the year, it will be considered to be the agreed, final version of the procedure. [Well, until we revisit this in the future...]
Assuming there is agreement on the final text by the end of the year, I will ask the WG for statements of support for that final text so that we can hopefully declare consensus early in the new year. The plan would then be for the procedure to start in good time for RIPE70.
In case anyone cares, here's that proposed text again.
#
# $Id: appointment,v 1.6 2014/10/06 11:46:56 jim Exp $
#
[1] The DNS WG will have N co-chairs. N will normally be 2 or 3, as
determined by the WG.
[2] A co-chair will serve a term of N years, where N is the number
of co-chairs. Terms will be staggered so that one term expires every
year. A co-chair cannot serve more than 2 consecutive terms.
[3] The WG will be given adequate notice that a co-chair's term is
ending and to invite applications for that position. Anyone can
volunteer for appointment.
[4] At the end of a co-chair's term, the WG will decide by consensus
who is appointed to the available co-chair position. In the event of a
tie, the consensus tied candidates will draw lots.
[5] The WG may decide by consensus to remove a WG co-chair at any time.
[6] Consensus will be determined on the DNS WG mailing list. The consensus
judgement will be made by the serving WG co-chair(s) and will exclude the
co-chair who is the subject of that consensus judgement.
[7] Any appeal over a consensus decision will be heard by the RIPE Chair
(or their deputy) whose decision shall be final.
