I like simplicity that works so, in general, the proposal looks good to me. A few questions though: On 08 Oct 2014, at 11:43, Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> wrote:
Comments welcome.
# # $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.
Can we at least pick a default value, e.g. 3 as it is now, since it seems to work.
[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.
Please define tie in the context of a consensus process. Sounds like one of these simple-to-say/hard-to-do-right things. What would be wrong with a simple vote? sounds simpler.
[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.
In closing, would the current co-chairs stay in place, initiate a rotation right away, or all clear the deck (ala IPv6 wg)? Thanks for this, Joao