+1

Le 14 oct. 2020 à 16:46, Benno Overeinder <benno@nlnetlabs.nl> a écrit :

I support Joao for another term.

— Benno

...

On 14 Oct 2020, at 15:29, Dave Knight <dave@shl.io> wrote:

Colleagues,

The nomination period for the RIPE DNS working group chair selection has completed with a single volunteer, Joao Damas. He sent us the following text:

------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear DNS WG co-chairs,

I send this email as an individual to put my name into the pool of candidates for DNS WG chair role up for election during RIPE 81.

I would like to continue this role for one more term as I believe I can still contribute positively to the Working Group and the RIPE Community in general as I have done for the this term, bringing topical content and discussions to the Working Group, reacting to the current situation by working with the Group’s co-chairs to have periodic online sessions that keep us all as a group and working with the other working group chairs at RIPE to continue developing the community.

Regards, Joao Luis Silva Damas -------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please offer whatever support (or opposition) you have for Joao on the list.

Thanks, dave, for the DNS wg chairs

-- Benno J. Overeinder NLnet Labs https://www.nlnetlabs.nl/

Thank you Joao for volunteering again! +1 Victoria Risk Internet Systems Consortium vicky@isc.org

On Oct 14, 2020, at 9:51 AM, Eduardo Duarte via dns-wg <dns-wg@ripe.net> wrote:

Dear all,

I support Joao nomination.

Best regards,

Aviso de Confidencialidade/Disclaimer: Este e-mail foi escrito de acordo com o novo acordo ortográfico. Esta mensagem é exclusivamente destinada ao seu destinatário, podendo conter informação CONFIDENCIAL, cuja divulgação está expressamente vedada nos termos da lei. Caso tenha recepcionado indevidamente esta mensagem, solicitamos-lhe que nos comunique esse mesmo facto por esta via devendo apagar o seu conteúdo de imediato. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. It may contain CONFIDENTIAL information protected by law. If this message has been received by error, please notify us via e-mail and delete it immediately. [ Antes de imprimir esta mensagem pense no ambiente. Before printing this message, think about environment ] Às 14:29 de 14/10/20, Dave Knight escreveu:

...

Colleagues,

The nomination period for the RIPE DNS working group chair selection has completed with a single volunteer, Joao Damas. He sent us the following text:

------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear DNS WG co-chairs,

I send this email as an individual to put my name into the pool of candidates for DNS WG chair role up for election during RIPE 81.

I would like to continue this role for one more term as I believe I can still contribute positively to the Working Group and the RIPE Community in general as I have done for the this term, bringing topical content and discussions to the Working Group, reacting to the current situation by working with the Group’s co-chairs to have periodic online sessions that keep us all as a group and working with the other working group chairs at RIPE to continue developing the community.

Regards, Joao Luis Silva Damas -------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please offer whatever support (or opposition) you have for Joao on the list.

Thanks, dave, for the DNS wg chairs

Supporting Joao is a no-brainer - +1

actually, i would suggest it is not. [ aside: i like joão, and think he has done a fine job. i might join the +1s, except for the following ] i thought we wanted to encourage new/young folk to enter and play. when we have an 'election' and an incumbent instantly steps up, and 42 people all say +1, all within a day or two, this is a total barrier to any new entrant. so, to put our money where our mouths are [0] two suggestions o no +1s. leave it until the actual election o we might think about term limits randy -- [0] idiom meaning to walk what we talk [1] [1] idiom meaning to do as we say :)

Dear Randy, With all respect my respect for you, I still support Joao.

o we might think about term limits

I think putting a term limit may prevent talented people from serving the community in spite of their willingness to continue their useful work. If there were many candidates with similar qualities, I would have no problem with asking for change. Best regards, Janos

randy

--

[0] idiom meaning to walk what we talk [1]

[1] idiom meaning to do as we say :)

Hi Randy I agree with you and that’s why i pushed for the dns wg to have a blind period of candidate collection during which no one sees who else might be volunteering. What you see now is the publication of the candidate list after that period elapsed. Turns out no one else volunteered On top of that we have term limits to “force” renewal, so basically I think we agree Joao

On 15 Oct 2020, at 19:47, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:



...

Supporting Joao is a no-brainer - +1

actually, i would suggest it is not.

[ aside: i like joão, and think he has done a fine job. i might join the +1s, except for the following ]

i thought we wanted to encourage new/young folk to enter and play. when we have an 'election' and an incumbent instantly steps up, and 42 people all say +1, all within a day or two, this is a total barrier to any new entrant.

so, to put our money where our mouths are [0] two suggestions

o no +1s. leave it until the actual election

o we might think about term limits

randy

--

[0] idiom meaning to walk what we talk [1]

[1] idiom meaning to do as we say :)

Randy,

On Oct 15, 2020, at 4:01 PM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:

hi joão,

...

I agree with you and that’s why i pushed for the dns wg to have a blind period of candidate collection during which no one sees who else might be volunteering. What you see now is the publication of the candidate list after that period elapsed. Turns out no one else volunteered

as the dns-wg is not the only one with the same symptom in this season, then, assuming we want fresh blood, i suspect have a systemic failure.

During 2004 there was a merging of all things DNS into this working group and from around then and for the next ten or so years we had these co-chairs Jaap Akkerhuis Peter Koch Jim Reid In July 2015 we adopted the new chair selection process and it was decided that the then current chairs would step down one per year over the following three years. The new process has been exercised several times since then with these results Nov 2015, RIPE 71 Peter Koch was succeeded by Dave Knight for a 3 year term Oct 2016, RIPE 73 Jim Reid was succeeded by Shane Kerr for a 3 year term Oct 2017, RIPE 75 Jaap Akkerhuis was succeeded by Joao Damas for a 3 year term Having observed that in all of the three above cases the first person to respond to the call for nominations was selected to be a co-chair we changed our interpretation of the process and asked that future nominations be sent to the wg chairs to be released en masse in order to preclude a first responder advantage. Oct 2018, RIPE 77 Dave Knight was the only volunteer and is serving a second and final three year term Oct 2019, RIPE 79 Shane Kerr was the only volunteer and is serving a second and final three year term Oct 2020, RIPE 81 Joao Damas is the only volunteer ... which I think shows that in recent years the working group has made reasonable efforts to hold the door open to fresh blood, it just doesn't seem terribly keen to use it.

but i take your point that we have tried to fix it. how do we get new folk in the game?

We have three year terms and a two term limit. I'm out a year from now, then Shane and then Joao one and two years later. There will have to be fresh blood then! If the working group feels strongly about encouraging new faces perhaps we should amend the process such that new co-chairs may servce onlky a single term? dave

On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 3:24 PM Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> wrote: [...]

I’m not sure. Serving a single three year term seems too short IMO. A bit more stability would be desirable. Besides, is it the selection procedure that's discouraging new faces or could it be the incumbents are doing such a good job, nobody feels the need to disrupt that? Let’s first identify the problem before deciding what the solution is.

I agree that the current chairs have done a superb job. I wonder if people are hesitant to put their hat in the ring because they are not sure that they can commit the time, or are concerned that their employers might be less than supportive? The former could be overcome by sharing details of how much time the chairs need to dedicate to managing the WG.

Maybe the co-chairs need to do a little succession planning: finding suitable candidates to mentor and then encouraging them to volunteer when the term limits kick in.

Succession planning is good but placing the burden on the chairs themselves seems a lot to ask. Regards, Leo

On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 4:21 PM Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> wrote:

...

On 15 Oct 2020, at 23:40, Leo Vegoda <leo@vegoda.org> wrote:

Succession planning is good but placing the burden on the chairs themselves seems a lot to ask.

I strongly disagree Leo. For one thing, any burden from things like this is why WG co-chairs get the big bucks. :-) When you’re in a leadership position (for some definition of that term), it’s reasonable to be expected to show some... er... leadership. Succession planning comes with the territory. As is making an orderly handover when your term ends.

Succession planning is not a lot to ask in terms of time or effort. Or shouldn’t be. In my experience it’s far less of a resource drain than planning or running a WG session. How hard can it be to identify a couple of possible candidates, explain what the job entails (preferably over a tasty beverage) and ask them if they’d be interested or willing to stand as a co-chair?

I agree that having conversations with potential nominees to the role is completely appropriate. I just don't think that counts as planning. It's really just a hope that people with the right skills will be available at the right time.

Finally, if a WG's co-chairs can’t or won’t do the succession planning who will? [Hopefully not yet another NomCom.] And would their efforts have any credibility? Imagine if it was someone who had never run a WG or understood the WG dynamics who tried to do the succession planning.

A NomCom can't plan because its role is to select from the available options. Planning for this really needs to be done over a period of years so that we're not just relying on a couple of conversations over beer and the hope that people will have the time to volunteer. Regards, Leo

dave> If the working group feels strongly about encouraging new faces dave> perhaps we should amend the process such that new co-chairs may dave> servce onlky a single term? Maybe have the outgoing and existing chairs explicitly go out and encourage someone who hasn't served before to volunteer? And have the chairs available to mentor/counsel newbies? Doesn't need to be a rule/bylaw change, just an intention.

On 16 Oct 2020, at 00:00, Dave Knight <dave@shl.io> wrote:

...

Maybe have the outgoing and existing chairs explicitly go out and encourage someone who hasn't served before to volunteer?

I struggle to reconcile our efforts toward impartiality with the notion of having the chairs encouraging a preferred candidate.

It depends on what’s meant by encouragement. I'm fairly sure Paul means approaching someone (or more than one) and saying “Have you ever thought of becoming a WG co-chair?”. Which would be fine. He almost certainly wasn’t meaning the co-chairs dictate to the WG who they must select. Which obviously would not be fine. Encouraging someone to stand doesn’t necessarily mean there’s a preferred candidate (after all the WG makes the selection) or impartiality has been compromised.

Dave, all, On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 05:47:26PM -0400, Dave Knight wrote:

Nov 2015, RIPE 71 Peter Koch was succeeded by Dave Knight for a 3 year term Oct 2016, RIPE 73 Jim Reid was succeeded by Shane Kerr for a 3 year term Oct 2017, RIPE 75 Jaap Akkerhuis was succeeded by Joao Damas for a 3 year term

Having observed that in all of the three above cases the first person to respond to the call for nominations was selected to be a co-chair we changed our interpretation of the process and asked that future nominations be sent to the wg chairs to be released en masse in order to preclude a first responder advantage.

Oct 2018, RIPE 77 Dave Knight was the only volunteer and is serving a second and final three year term Oct 2019, RIPE 79 Shane Kerr was the only volunteer and is serving a second and final three year term Oct 2020, RIPE 81 Joao Damas is the only volunteer

thanks a lot for adding data and thereby getting the history straight and the current rules on the table. Also appreaciate the learning from take one. I'd just add that in the first round none of you three was really new (feature) and two, IIRC, weren't even new to the chair role (data point). The current trio has done a very good job, IMHO, especially by adding the regular zoom sessions during the course of the year. Other than that, the WG (and that might apply to some other RIPE WGs more or less) is little more(*) than a specialized track in the overall RIPE program. Traffic on the list is low (I know I'm showing my age by even mentioning the mailing list as an indicator) and dominated by this very thread, meeting announcements and announcements of RIPE Labs articles, usually with little subsequent discussion. That's OK and in particular I don't think that's a fault and even less a fault of the chairs, but it could put importance and emotions (around voting or acclamation) a bit into perspective. The (*) little more is the function as a resonance chamber (not to be confused with echo chamber) for the RIPE NCC's DNS activities, of course. Best, Peter

On 15 Oct 2020, at 22:01, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:

as the dns-wg is not the only one with the same symptom in this season, then, assuming we want fresh blood, i suspect have a systemic failure. but i take your point that we have tried to fix it. how do we get new folk in the game?

Just to pitch an old (from last year) idea of mine is to reserve a cochair seat for a junior person (junior can be defined in several ways, not necessarily age). With three co-chairs, one can have two seasoned persons, selected as we do now, and one fresh/new co-chair who can learn on the job. In Rotterdam I discussed this idea with some WG chairs and at the end of the Routing WG session in Rotterdam. Job (co-chair Routing WG, cc-ing this email) responded positively. However, I did not follow up on this idea, but I am happy to pick up the stick and coordinate this with others. — Benno -- Benno J. Overeinder NLnet Labs https://www.nlnetlabs.nl/