proposal for appointment/removal of WG co-chairs
Colleagues, you may be aware that all RIPE Working Groups have been asked to devise and document a procedure for the selection of its Chairs. Some WGs have started to do that. Each WG is expected to come up with its own mechanism and decide on that themselves. My personal view is WGs are too different and the community is too diffuse for consensus to emerge on a "one size fits all" approach any time soon. Perhaps WGs will converge on a common approach in a few years in light of experience with whatever mechanisms get adopted in the coming months. However, that should not delay each WG deciding on a procedure and using it. And documenting it of course! With that in mind, here's a proposal for you to consider. The objective here is to have something simple and lightweight with the minimum of "rules" and "process". Feel free to disagree if you prefer something more elaborate. The key points in the draft are (a) the WG decides for itself how the WG gets run; (b) we work by consensus; (c) decisions are taken on the list; (d) there is an element of rotation. As well as the expected list discussion, there will be some time in the WG agenda for RIPE69 to discuss matters. The hope is the WG can reach consensus on an appointment/removal mechanism by the end of the year (ish) and the first run of the WG Chair beauty contest (swimsuit round optional) by RIPE70(ish) in 2015. 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. [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.
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
On 8 Oct 2014, at 11:05, João Damas <joao@bondis.org> wrote:
I like simplicity that works so, in general, the proposal looks good to me.
Thanks Joao.
[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.
I think it's best to leave this open for now Joao: flexibility and all that. The WG is probably only going to have one slot at RIPE69 and if that continues for future meetings, 2 co-chairs may well be enough. OTOH if the WG gets flooded with work and/or agenda items, an extra meeting slot and co-chair would be needed. A decision on the number of co-chairs should be separated from the appointment procedure. ie the thing here is co-chairs serve a term of N years where N is whatever the number of co-chairs the WG decides is appropriate.
[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.
When two or more candidates have roughly equal levels of support which means there's no clear consensus on who should be appointed. I hope we can just apply common sense here instead of devising a procedure which requires wordsmithing and amateur lawyering over lots of definitions.
What would be wrong with a simple vote? sounds simpler.
There be dragons! It opens up too many awkward problems IMO. Like deciding who gets to vote, how that gets done anonymously (presumably), what the eligibility criteria are, how the vote gets audited/counted, etc, etc. Voting by mailing list or on-line gives me the heebie-jeebies. I'm unsure how feasible it would be to use the NCC's on-line voting stuff (say) to appoint a WG Chair. Or if that's even appropriate. [Maybe one of the other WGs will try that and see how it works out.] Voting in person at a RIPE meeting would disenfranchise those who are unable to attend. So although voting might sound simpler, IMO it opens up lots of rat-holes and adds unwelcome complexity that shouldn't be needed. YMMV. I think it's best to start with something simple and lightweight. The procedure can always be changed later if/when experience shows that voting or whatever turns out to be a better way of deciding things. It seems reasonable to me that if the WG arrives at a consensus behind two candidates for one position, we might as well toss a coin to pick one of them. Why bother with anything more complicated than that? Aside from these operational and practical concerns, there's an important meta-issue. RIPE does not vote. It is not the ITU. RIPE decides important things by consensus (or should do). It will be a very sad day if RIPE sleepwalks away from consensus-driven decision making and introduces voting for (nearly) everything. Yes, I know we vote at RIPE meetings for the ASO and PC. But these things have no impact on RIPE's governance and policy-making.
In closing, would the current co-chairs stay in place, initiate a rotation right away, or all clear the deck (ala IPv6 wg)?
That's for the WG to decide. My own view is there should not be a mass clear-out -- continuity and all that -- and the current co-chairs would be subject to whatever process the WG decides, one per year. So one of Jaap, Peter and myself would go through the process in 2015, another in 2016 and the final stuckee in 2017. That might well allow fresh faces to be gradually introduced: no bad thing. However if the WG feels a palace coup is required, that'll be fine by me.
Jim, Nice, simple, straightforward guidance for well behaving people. Love it.
# # $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.
Why restrict strictly to 2 consecutive terms? If WG and chairs are happy, why not keep them? (esp. if there are no other candidates)
[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.
Can one be volonteered? (in case someone needs a gentle nudge)
[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.
This may be the only point where I think something close to a majority is enough: if about half of the membership does no longer approve a co-chair, he may not longer be fit to play that role.
[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.
Gilles -- Fondation RESTENA - DNS-LU 6, rue Coudenhove-Kalergi L-1359 Luxembourg tel: (+352) 424409 fax: (+352) 422473
On 9 Oct 2014, at 08:59, Gilles Massen <gilles.massen@restena.lu> wrote:
Nice, simple, straightforward guidance for well behaving people. Love it.
Thanks Gilles.
[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.
Why restrict strictly to 2 consecutive terms? If WG and chairs are happy, why not keep them? (esp. if there are no other candidates)
The intention is to have an element of rotation so that new faces will be introduced from time to time. I suppose a well-respected co-chair could take a sabbatical for a year and take their chances in the appointment process the year after that. OTOH maybe that's not needed. It'll be for the WG to decide. FWIW your co-chairs do not agree on whether this 2 consecutive clauses should be there or not. So we're asking all of you. :-) Perhaps there's a better trade-off between stability/continuity and letting things get stale.
[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.
Can one be volonteered? (in case someone needs a gentle nudge)
Sure. Why not? It's quite likely someone might not think of putting themselves forward even though others consider they'd be a good candidate. If need be, I suppose the other WG co-chairs could look for potential stuckees and apply some arm-twisting^W^Wfriendly persuasion. The main idea here is to make the barriers to entry as low as possible. Anyone who's prepared to do the job should have no obstacles to applying.
[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.
This may be the only point where I think something close to a majority is enough: if about half of the membership does no longer approve a co-chair, he may not longer be fit to play that role.
I would expect a reasonable co-chair to stand down immediately if there was a credible motion of no confidence against them and there would be no need for the WG to take that consensus decision. That's certainly what I would do. [Don't all rush at once! :-)] If things did get to that point, a consensus decision will be good enough IMO. In all likelihood that would be a majority decision one way or another. For some definition of majority.
participants (3)
-
Gilles Massen -
Jim Reid -
João Damas