Feedback requested on the selection process of new co-chairs
Dear RIPE DNS-WG, During the previous selection process of a new co-chair (in the run-up to RIPE 91), some discussion sparked offline and online on whether the current process of selecting a co-chair for this working group is still adequate. The current process is described here [1]. We hereby invite the community to provide feedback on the current selection process. Note that the current selection for a new working group co-chair will not be affected by this discussion. Any potential changes to the selection process will only come into action after RIPE 92. You still have until Monday to express your support for the new co-chair. - Moritz Müller for the RIPE DNS working group co-chairs (Ulrich, Yevheniya and me) [1] https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/dns/dns-wg-chair-selection-process
< no hats > nice to see this. one thing i have noticed is that, when a call for volunteers is made, if a first volunteer is announced on the list, this deters others from volunteering. this may bias against new blood, the more thoughtful, etc. perhaps defer announcing the volunteers until just before the call for consensus. randy
HI Randy, We adopted that optimization in the process almost eight years ago. https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/dns-wg@ripe.net/thread/3A2ST3OLLQPU5LBC4UQYS53PBJAY4BNC/ I think you've confirmed my suspicion that we'd benefit from documenting it, thank you :-) dave
On May 12, 2026, at 4:18 PM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
< no hats >
nice to see this.
one thing i have noticed is that, when a call for volunteers is made, if a first volunteer is announced on the list, this deters others from volunteering. this may bias against new blood, the more thoughtful, etc. perhaps defer announcing the volunteers until just before the call for consensus.
randy ----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/dns-wg.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
The current process seems fine, we always seem to have enough chairs, they seem to be doing a good job, so I'm hesitant to suggest change when the status quo is apparently a-ok. That said... A few years ago, having observed that the first person nominated more often than not went on to become the new chair, we adopted the practice of asking for nominations to be sent to the wg chairs, so that the list of nominees could be released to the wg at one time, removing the suggestion of a first mover advantage. We may want to document that. It has been stated several times over the years that "we don't vote". I wouldn't say that. What we do sure looks a lot like voting. Also, the current process speaks to: "[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." A tie, in the totally-not-voting mechanism of arriving at consensus? If I was to suggest any actual change to the process it would be an acknowledgement that we do, in fact, vote. dave
On May 12, 2026, at 3:22 PM, Moritz Müller via dns-wg <dns-wg@ripe.net> wrote:
Dear RIPE DNS-WG,
During the previous selection process of a new co-chair (in the run-up to RIPE 91), some discussion sparked offline and online on whether the current process of selecting a co-chair for this working group is still adequate. The current process is described here [1].
We hereby invite the community to provide feedback on the current selection process.
Note that the current selection for a new working group co-chair will not be affected by this discussion. Any potential changes to the selection process will only come into action after RIPE 92.
You still have until Monday to express your support for the new co-chair.
- Moritz Müller for the RIPE DNS working group co-chairs (Ulrich, Yevheniya and me)
[1] https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/dns/dns-wg-chair-selection-process ----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/dns-wg.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
Couldn’t agree more with Dave (which seems to be a superset of what randy said). Joao
On 12 May 2026, at 17:24, Dave Knight <dave@shl.io> wrote:
The current process seems fine, we always seem to have enough chairs, they seem to be doing a good job, so I'm hesitant to suggest change when the status quo is apparently a-ok. That said...
A few years ago, having observed that the first person nominated more often than not went on to become the new chair, we adopted the practice of asking for nominations to be sent to the wg chairs, so that the list of nominees could be released to the wg at one time, removing the suggestion of a first mover advantage. We may want to document that.
It has been stated several times over the years that "we don't vote". I wouldn't say that. What we do sure looks a lot like voting. Also, the current process speaks to: "[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."
A tie, in the totally-not-voting mechanism of arriving at consensus?
If I was to suggest any actual change to the process it would be an acknowledgement that we do, in fact, vote.
dave
On May 12, 2026, at 3:22 PM, Moritz Müller via dns-wg <dns-wg@ripe.net> wrote:
Dear RIPE DNS-WG,
During the previous selection process of a new co-chair (in the run-up to RIPE 91), some discussion sparked offline and online on whether the current process of selecting a co-chair for this working group is still adequate. The current process is described here [1].
We hereby invite the community to provide feedback on the current selection process.
Note that the current selection for a new working group co-chair will not be affected by this discussion. Any potential changes to the selection process will only come into action after RIPE 92.
You still have until Monday to express your support for the new co-chair.
- Moritz Müller for the RIPE DNS working group co-chairs (Ulrich, Yevheniya and me)
[1] https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/dns/dns-wg-chair-selection-process ----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/dns-wg.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/dns-wg.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
On 12 May 2026, at 16:24, Dave Knight <dave@shl.io> wrote:
If I was to suggest any actual change to the process it would be an acknowledgement that we do, in fact, vote.
That would be wrong Dave. Very wrong. It's utter nonsense to talk of voting when there's no definition of who's eligible to vote (or how often) or what comprises the electorate.* IMO it would be a huge mistake to move away from consensus-based decision making. * Do I get to win an election because my 5000+ freshly created Tiktok friends vote for me? When we use consensus-based decisions, whoever makes the consensus determination can filter out scams like that.
On 12 May 2026, at 16:24, Dave Knight <dave@shl.io> wrote:
In the event of a tie, the consensus tied candidates will draw lots."
A tie, in the totally-not-voting mechanism of arriving at consensus?
s/In the event of a tie/When there's no clear consensus/ You seem to be saying "tie" implies voting. I disagree. Food fight! :-)
On 12/05/2026 17:49, Jim Reid wrote:
s/In the event of a tie/When there's no clear consensus/
You seem to be saying "tie" implies voting. I disagree. Food fight! :-)
The term "consensus" implies agreement among those involved in making the decision. This may not involve formal voting, although it is still a process through which consensus is achieved and one that resembles voting. From what I understand, Dave would like this process to be more formalised. Personally, I don't feel the need to proceduralise it any further at this stage. Gregory
On 12 May 2026, at 16:57, Gregory Brzeski <gregory@brzeski.pl> wrote:
Personally, I don't feel the need to proceduralise it any further at this stage.
Me too! Besides, surely we all have plenty of more important things that need our attention?
Hi, On Tue, May 12, 2026 at 05:06:35PM +0100, Jim Reid wrote:
Besides, surely we all have plenty of more important things that need our attention?
What can be more important than a discussion about voting-or-not? (Nice distraction from recent DNSSEC incidents ;-) ) Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: Dr. Frank Thiäner D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
The only tweak that could make any sense would be the nomination process as others have pointed out. But at a more meta level, why does every WG have a different process for selecting its chairs? -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ https://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072<tel:+353599183072> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090<tel:+353599183090> Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 I have sent this email at a time that is convenient for me. I do not expect you to respond to it outside of your usual working hours. From: Moritz Müller via dns-wg <dns-wg@ripe.net> Date: Tuesday, 12 May 2026 at 15:23 To: RIPE DNS WG <dns-wg@ripe.net> Subject: [dns-wg] Feedback requested on the selection process of new co-chairs [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Please use caution when opening attachments from unrecognised sources. Dear RIPE DNS-WG, During the previous selection process of a new co-chair (in the run-up to RIPE 91), some discussion sparked offline and online on whether the current process of selecting a co-chair for this working group is still adequate. The current process is described here [1]. We hereby invite the community to provide feedback on the current selection process. Note that the current selection for a new working group co-chair will not be affected by this discussion. Any potential changes to the selection process will only come into action after RIPE 92. You still have until Monday to express your support for the new co-chair. - Moritz Müller for the RIPE DNS working group co-chairs (Ulrich, Yevheniya and me) [1] https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/dns/dns-wg-chair-selection-process ----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/dns-wg.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
On 12/05/2026 6:10 pm, Michele Neylon - Blacknight via dns-wg wrote:
But at a more meta level, why does every WG have a different process for selecting its chairs?
there are historical reasons, but there has definitely been efforts to harmonize the processes. Julf
On 12 May 2026, at 17:10, Michele Neylon - Blacknight via dns-wg <dns-wg@ripe.net> wrote:
why does every WG have a different process for selecting its chairs?
WGs are supposed to be autonomous and decide for themselves how best the WG gets run. RIPE's meant to follow bottom-up principles. This is also supposed to apply to the creation and closure of WGs. Embrace diversity!
Hi, On Tue, May 12, 2026 at 04:10:16PM +0000, Michele Neylon - Blacknight via dns-wg wrote:
But at a more meta level, why does every WG have a different process for selecting its chairs?
Back in the day when the WG chair selection processes were formally defined and written down (in the old days it was mostly "do we have any volunteer in the room? yes? great!") it was felt that the difference between working groups were significant enough to warrant different processes. I admit part of it was my doing :-) - address policy and ncc-services had (and still have) a somewhat more formal role in governing "what the RIPE NCC does", while other WGs are more "special interest groups that use the opportunity to meet when all the good people are in the room anyway" - so the interest in serving the WG chair role is different, and so are the qualifications searched for. One of the biggest discussion points was "term limits" - in WGs that have a good influx of chairs, limiting this to "each chair can only serve two terms and then has to step down" seemed useful, while in APWG, having the continuity of "no hard term limit" was also seen as useful... (but they still got rid of me eventually!) </old man talking> Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: Dr. Frank Thiäner D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
participants (9)
-
Dave Knight -
Gert Doering -
Gregory Brzeski -
Jim Reid -
Johan Helsingius -
João Damas -
Michele Neylon - Blacknight -
Moritz Müller -
Randy Bush