reminder about the WG Chair appointment process
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.
On 25/11/2014 12:09, Jim Reid wrote:
In case anyone cares, here's that proposed text again.
Jim, the proposal is non-deterministic. There's no discriminator in place to decide who gets to stand down if N changes and two chairs need to stand down at the same time, or if somehow the chair terms become synchronised. Drawing lots is fine but where, how, who, what? What happens if the WG goes to blazes and there's only one chair and that chair is subject of a mutiny? Maybe this isn't important and we can do the usual trick of sweeping it under the carpet and pretending that it doesn't exist / isn't a problem / oh look at the nice view out the window over there. Nick
# # $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.
On 25 Nov 2014, at 12:37, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote:
On 25/11/2014 12:09, Jim Reid wrote:
In case anyone cares, here's that proposed text again.
Jim, the proposal is non-deterministic. There's no discriminator in place to decide who gets to stand down if N changes and two chairs need to stand down at the same time, or if somehow the chair terms become synchronised. Drawing lots is fine but where, how, who, what? What happens if the WG goes to blazes and there's only one chair and that chair is subject of a mutiny?
Maybe this isn't important and we can do the usual trick of sweeping it under the carpet and pretending that it doesn't exist / isn't a problem / oh look at the nice view out the window over there.
Nick
I agree that this is a (Small) flaw. However we can t actually plan for every eventuality and I think as a group of we are grown up enough to deal with this is a sensible way if it ever comes up.. - The proposal gets my support.. Michael
# # $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.
On 25 Nov 2014, at 12:37, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote:
Jim, the proposal is non-deterministic.
Nick, thanks for your comments. I'm both surprised and disappointed. Surprised because the mood of the room/WG appears to be the proposed text is "good enough". Nobody has advocated making radical surgery to it despite the proposed text being in circulation for almost two months now. I'm disappointed that you've not provided alternate text to address the concerns you raised. This is not helpful.
There's no discriminator in place to decide who gets to stand down if N changes and two chairs need to stand down at the same time, or if somehow the chair terms become synchronised.
Just apply common sense. If we go from 3 to 2 WG co-chairs, the one that's next due to stand down does not get replaced and the remaining ones get their terms cut by one year. If we then go from 2 to 3, do the reverse: extend the current terms by a year and slot in a new co-chair appointment at the newly-created gap in the cycle. If a co-chair leaves mid-term, the replacement (if one) gets appointed for the remainder of that term and we carry on from there: no muss, no fuss. Says he making it up as he goes along.... :-)
Drawing lots is fine but where, how, who, what?
In whatever place and format that the WG decides is resonable and appropriate: presumably at a webcasted session of the WG. A decision on that is implementation detail and since it may change from time to time, I think it's undesirable to have a rigid definition here. IMO RIPE should always operate with the minimum of rules so there's the maximum flexibility to deal with issues in the most pragmatic way whenever they pop up. This is what differentiates our community from ICANN. Or the ITU. It would be great shame if that got lost. It would be even worse if we deliberately chose to follow the models used by those institutions.
What happens if the WG goes to blazes and there's only one chair and that chair is subject of a mutiny?
If that ever happens, bring in Bijal to kill the WG. :-) The WG would clearly be irreedemably broken by then and cannot continue. The community can then decide to create a new WG (or not) using the usual mechanisms of running a BoF or two, finding a possible chairman and drafting a new chapter. This seems so obvious to me, it shouldn't need to get documented in some Big Book of Working Group Procedures resting in the Holy Grail at the Temple of Process. [Hey, isn't that the title of the next Indiana Jones film? :-)] There's nothing in the current proposal to deal with one of the WG co-chairs getting incapacitated by killer sharks with mind-control lasers. Or all co-chairs disappearing in a mysterious boating accident involving the Loch Ness monster. The point I'm making here is inventing rules to cover every potential corner case and scenario is a mug's game. I hope everyone has got better things to do. IMO all that's needed is to agree and document the fundamental principles. How these get applied can be decided if/when some unforseen circumstance emerges and what approach is best to handle that, getting consensus from the WG if need be. I would expect the WG can trust itself to take a reasonable and pragmatic course of action at that point. If it can't, no amount of rules or process is going to help.
Maybe this isn't important
+1
and we can do the usual trick of sweeping it under the carpet and pretending that it doesn't exist / isn't a problem /
Works for me. YMMV.
oh look at the nice view out the window over there.
Look! A squirrel!
On 25/11/2014 14:42, Jim Reid wrote:
Nick, thanks for your comments.
I'm both surprised and disappointed. Surprised because the mood of the room/WG appears to be the proposed text is "good enough". Nobody has advocated making radical surgery to it despite the proposed text being in circulation for almost two months now. I'm disappointed that you've not provided alternate text to address the concerns you raised. This is not helpful.
You're welcome for the comments. I wasn't able to make the london wg session and only subscribed to the mailing list on Oct 11, which was a couple of days after the previous discussion about chair proposals ended. Timing is everything, apparently.
There's no discriminator in place to decide who gets to stand down if N changes and two chairs need to stand down at the same time, or if somehow the chair terms become synchronised.
Just apply common sense. If we go from 3 to 2 WG co-chairs, the one that's next due to stand down does not get replaced and the remaining ones get their terms cut by one year. If we then go from 2 to 3, do the reverse: extend the current terms by a year and slot in a new co-chair appointment at the newly-created gap in the cycle. If a co-chair leaves mid-term, the replacement (if one) gets appointed for the remainder of that term and we carry on from there: no muss, no fuss. Says he making it up as he goes along.... :-)
I don't disagree with any of this, including the common sense thing, but you've put your finger on the core issue: making things up as you go along is fine in situations where the WG chairs are both benign and competent. Problems arise where either of these attributes is missing, which is one of the core reasons why there is a move to have WG selection guidelines in the first place.
What happens if the WG goes to blazes and there's only one chair and that chair is subject of a mutiny?
If that ever happens, bring in Bijal to kill the WG. :-)
eh yeah, I cannot confirm or deny deleting that suggestion from my original email before clicking send. But on a more serious note, being prime instigator in a certain incident not wholly unrelated to this, some guidelines / procedures would have things a lot easier for everyone involved. It's good to see that you've explicitly mentioned chair removal in the appointment text because it's important.
There's nothing in the current proposal to deal with one of the WG co-chairs getting incapacitated by killer sharks with mind-control lasers. Or all co-chairs disappearing in a mysterious boating accident involving the Loch Ness monster.
Indeed no, nor do we need things like this; just that the proposals be unambiguous and straightforward, and that they cover most situations. Nick
On 25 Nov 2014, at 17:54, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote:
You're welcome for the comments. I wasn't able to make the london wg session and only subscribed to the mailing list on Oct 11, which was a couple of days after the previous discussion about chair proposals ended. Timing is everything, apparently.
Indeed. Sigh.
I don't disagree with any of this, including the common sense thing, but you've put your finger on the core issue: making things up as you go along is fine in situations where the WG chairs are both benign and competent.
But why should this be a problem? Presumably the WG can be trusted to select people who have those qualities. If it turns out not to be the case, the WG has the tools to get rid of someone who no longer has the confidence of the WG for whatever reason. The proposed mechanism includes a measure for removing any WG co-chair who was evil or incompetent or both. So it shouldn't be necessary to go beyond that. If this admittedly complacent attitude later turns out to have been a mistake, it can be addressed at that point.
Problems arise where either of these attributes is missing, which is one of the core reasons why there is a move to have WG selection guidelines in the first place.
Not quite Nick. The main reasons for this WG chair selection-fest are accountability and transparency. It was not motivated by the recent need to remove a defective WG chair. Though admittedly some people felt at that time that the absence of a process to follow was a concern. Not that this gap made a difference to the outcome in that particular case once an angry mob with pitchforks and blazing torches made their feelings known in the relevant WG.
On 25/11/2014 18:46, Jim Reid wrote:
But why should this be a problem?
I'm not saying it'll ever be a problem for DNS-WG in the future, just that it's been a problem for other WGs in the past. Those who don't learn their history are condemned to repeat it. Nick
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 12:09:25PM +0000, Jim Reid wrote:
[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.
as was mentioned during the session, not all of the co-chairs agreed on this text. Let me explain my dissent: iff (sic!) we accept the 'as lightweight as possible' axiom for the design, the term limit seems redundant to me based on the assumption that common sense should prevail. Change and rotation is already taken care of by the useful term length and explicit appointment procedures. Rest assured this is not myself looking forward to a lifetime sentence.
[5] The WG may decide by consensus to remove a WG co-chair at any time.
Last time this became imminent in another WG, a lynch mob was orchestrated kind of along these lines. The result was right, just that due process suffered "a bit". Therefore I think this aspect is underspecified and would benefit from replacement by what the WG chair task force had come up with. Of course, that's not specific to this particular WG. -Peter (no hat)
On 25/11/2014 18:15, Peter Koch wrote:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 12:09:25PM +0000, Jim Reid wrote:
[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.
as was mentioned during the session, not all of the co-chairs agreed on this text. Let me explain my dissent: iff (sic!) we accept the 'as lightweight as possible' axiom for the design, the term limit seems redundant to me based on the assumption that common sense should prevail. Change and rotation is already taken care of by the useful term length and explicit appointment procedures. Rest assured this is not myself looking forward to a lifetime sentence.
[5] The WG may decide by consensus to remove a WG co-chair at any time.
Last time this became imminent in another WG, a lynch mob was orchestrated kind of along these lines. The result was right, just that due process suffered "a bit". Therefore I think this aspect is underspecified and would benefit from replacement by what the WG chair task force had come up with. Of course, that's not specific to this particular WG.
-Peter (no hat)
I'm fascinated by the ability of so many people in the RIPE community to be able to switch hats from one moment to the next, depending on the topic, and then argue about something as passionately as they claim to be dispassionate. Perhaps at the next meeting we could have a game of hat-switching bingo? Dutch bonnets for the winner, nieuwe haring for the runners-up. Otherwise, can you confirm that it is your completely unbiassed opinion, speaking as not-working-group-chair for a brief moment, that working group chairs should not be obliged to routinely stand down for re-selection because "don't be silly!" Nick
participants (4)
-
Jim Reid -
Michael Daly -
Nick Hilliard -
Peter Koch