IMO a “draw lots” thing is the simplest and most convenient way to resolve matters when a selection by consensus is unclear or isn’t possible: for instance, when support for two or more candidates is pretty much equal. A random selection mechanism like drawing lots provides a very pragmatic way to break those sort of deadlocks. Other ways to resolve a tie are of course possible. However they are likely to end up in a monument to process. And probably less robust/effective too.
Here's the text (already in use by ipv6-wg):
"If possible the Chair should be elected by acclamation by the WG or by consensus after discussion. If the result is unclear, then a secret ballot should be held. In the case of a ballot, votes will be counted by RIPE NCC Staff and/or Chairs of other WGs. The result will be determined by simple majority."
We've had ballots lots of times for the ASO AC elections. I even went through that process as a candidate myself. I disagree strongly with the characterisation of this as a monument to process.
Besides, if the names of the tied candidates all go into a hat, those who wish to shed-paint can get to debate who holds the hat, how big it is, what it’s made from, etc, etc. :-)
I do think it's crucial that the WG should try to get to the point of consensus, and everyone who wants to participate in that should be able to.
What I feel most strongly about is that, when consensus hasn't been reached, and we're at the point where we have to make a decision in the room – there must be a secret ballot. Without a secret ballot, the constituency is effectively those who are willing to speak at the mic. This is ok when deciding about policy. I think it's not ok when deciding about people.
--
Anna Wilson
Service Desk Manager
HEAnet CLG, Ireland’s National Education and Research Network
1st Floor, 5 George’s Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland
+353 (0)1 6609040
anna.wilson@heanet.ie www.heanet.ieRegistered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270