extension of co-chair selection process
Colleagues, there still haven't been many expressions of support for the co-chair candidates. This is disappointing. I'm reluctant to make a consensus determination on the basis of only a handful of people supporting either candidate. It would clearly be much better for everyone if there were more statements of support. Unless there's a dramatic change in the next day or two, I will let the appointment process run for another week in the hope that gives extra time for more people speak up in favour of Sandoche or Peter. With that in mind, the final date for expressing your support for either candidate is May 3rd. I'll make a decision then based on the level of support that's been posted to that point. Could you please take a few moments to post on the appropriate threads to express your support for either Sandoche Balakrichenan or Peter Steinhauser? Thanks. Peter: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/iot-wg/2019-March/000395.html Sandoche: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/iot-wg/2019-March/000393.html
Jim, all, On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 03:10:38AM +0100, Jim Reid wrote:
Could you please take a few moments to post on the appropriate threads to express your support for either Sandoche Balakrichenan or Peter Steinhauser?
for one, "expressing support" per thread is voting, not consensus building. In that spirit, since the WG is perspectively looking for two new chairs anyway, and both canditates do seem qualified to me while at the same time offering different perspectives and background, I do not see a need for a continued beauty contest but would like to suggest instead to appoint both Sandoche and Peter. That would ease the onboarding process, as well. When it comes to the staggered terms, we can still have the two draw straws (well, an IoT WG should really let them draw batteries instead ...). Regards, Peter
A pragmatic way forward? I know it is what we tend to expect from Peter. But why not? Gordon
On 25 Apr 2019, at 08:49, Peter Koch <pk@DENIC.DE> wrote:
Jim, all,
for one, "expressing support" per thread is voting, not consensus building. In that spirit, since the WG is perspectively looking for two new chairs anyway, and both canditates do seem qualified to me while at the same time offering different perspectives and background, I do not see a need for a continued beauty contest but would like to suggest instead to appoint both Sandoche and Peter. That would ease the onboarding process, as well. When it comes to the staggered terms, we can still have the two draw straws (well, an IoT WG should really let them draw batteries instead ...).
Regards, Peter
I agree, this may also be the time to consider whether the voting process can be done differently/better. Groet, Eric Von: "Gordon Lennox" <gordon.lennox.13@gmail.com> An: "IoT WG RIPE" <iot-wg@ripe.net> Kopie: "Peter Koch" <pk@DENIC.DE> Datum: 25-04-2019 09:15 Betreff: Re: [iot-wg] extension of co-chair selection process Gesendet von: "iot-wg" <iot-wg-bounces@ripe.net> A pragmatic way forward? I know it is what we tend to expect from Peter. But why not? Gordon
On 25 Apr 2019, at 08:49, Peter Koch <pk@DENIC.DE> wrote:
Jim, all,
for one, "expressing support" per thread is voting, not consensus building. In that spirit, since the WG is perspectively looking for two new chairs anyway, and both canditates do seem qualified to me while at the same time offering different perspectives and background, I do not see a need for a continued beauty contest but would like to suggest instead to appoint both Sandoche and Peter. That would ease the onboarding process, as well. When it comes to the staggered terms, we can still have the two draw straws (well, an IoT WG should really let them draw batteries instead ...).
Regards, Peter
_______________________________________________ iot-wg mailing list iot-wg@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/iot-wg
On 25 Apr 2019, at 08:20, Eric van Uden via iot-wg <iot-wg@ripe.net> wrote:
I agree, this may also be the time to consider whether the voting process can be done differently/better.
RIPE does not vote!!! We take decisions by consensus. If you think the current appointment process can be improved, let's hear your suggestions. However it's impractical and unwise to change the current process while it's under way. Any new or revised process would need to be something to adopt AFTER a co-chair is appointed with the current procedure that's in progress. Unless of course the WG decides it doesn't want to use the current procedure => we enter a world of pain where there's no appointment process or an additional co-chair for the forseeable future.
On 25/04/2019 08:49, Peter Koch wrote:
... since the WG is perspectively looking for two new chairs anyway, and both canditates do seem qualified to me while at the same time offering different perspectives and background, I do not see a need for a continued beauty contest but would like to suggest instead to appoint both Sandoche and Peter. ...
Perfectly captures the RIPE spirit. Get on with it! Daniel
On 25 Apr 2019, at 11:27, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
On 25/04/2019 08:49, Peter Koch wrote:
... since the WG is perspectively looking for two new chairs anyway, and both canditates do seem qualified to me while at the same time offering different perspectives and background, I do not see a need for a continued beauty contest but would like to suggest instead to appoint both Sandoche and Peter. ...
Perfectly captures the RIPE spirit. Get on with it!
Well spoken! Patrik
On 25 Apr 2019, at 10:27, Daniel Karrenberg <dfk@ripe.net> wrote:
I do not see a need for a continued beauty contest but would like to suggest instead to appoint both Sandoche and Peter. ...
Perfectly captures the RIPE spirit. Get on with it!
It's not that simple. The WG has an agreed co-chair appointment process. It's in progress as I type. IMO we should let that process run its course and make a consensus determination in the usual way we do things at RIPE. It would be a different story if the WG's process was clearly defective or there were extraordinary circumstances like the coop WG meltdown a couple of years ago. Neither of these things are true in this case. If the WG wants to rip up its current process, that's fine. But it needs to say so and have good reason fortaking that course of action. Abandoning an agreed procedure -- and on what appears to be nothing more than a whim -- will set an ugly and dangerous precedent. What could be the next RIPE procedure that gets ignored or torn apart just because someone wants to "get on with it"? We should think *very* carefully about the consequences of such behaviour. Of course if the WG wants to discard its agreed co-chair appointment procedure, that's fine. This would however be awkward with RIPE78 only a few weeks away. I very much doubt the WG could reach consensus on a new procedure in such a short amount of time and then activate that process so new co-chairs could be in place for Reykjavik.
On 25-04-19 08:49, Peter Koch wrote:
In that spirit, since the WG is perspectively looking for two new chairs anyway, and both canditates do seem qualified to me while at the same time offering different perspectives and background, I do not see a need for a continued beauty contest but would like to suggest instead to appoint both Sandoche and Peter.
Sounds like a good way forward. Julf
On 25 Apr 2019, at 07:49, Peter Koch <pk@DENIC.DE> wrote:
I do not see a need for a continued beauty contest but would like to suggest instead to appoint both Sandoche and Peter.
Well, I want a pony and I want it now. :-) 1) The WG's agreed co-chair selection procedure does not permit a double appointment. 2) Appointment and co-chair terms are deliberately staggered to allow for succession planning and continuity. Installing two candidates at the same time destroys that. 3) The agreed appointment process is actually in progress. It would not be fair to the candidates or the WG to rip all that up and start again. That would also be confusing for everyone. More so when the current process is under way and hopefully close to a resolution. 4) Changing the rules without good reason -- just "get on with it" is not a strong enough justification IMO -- sets a very dangerous and ugly precedent. How many more RIPE processes will we choose to ignore whenever we feel like it? Think carefully about the consequences of going down that path. 5) A new appointment process would need to be agreed and activated to appoint both Sandoche and Peter. Handwave, handwave. Assuming they'd be the only candidates. Given how long it took for the WG to reach consensus on the current process, I doubt a replacement mechanism could be found quickly or that the WG would reach consensus on it any time soon: certainly not before RIPE78. And then once that new process was put into effect, we'd need to allow several weeks for candidates to come forward and the WG reach consensus on who they want. That's already proving difficult. Fewer than 10 or so people have expressed a preference for either Peter or Sandoche so far.
That would ease the onboarding process, as well.
It would do the very opposite because the WG would be lead by two fine individuals who had never run a RIPE WG before and now find themselves thrown in at the deep end.
The RIPE spirit is to be flexible and pragmatic with any procedure as the situation requires. In my reality the current situation is that both candidates have support and no clear consensus regarding a preference for either candidate exists. This is in keeping with the RIPE spirit that we accept all volunteers and avoid unnecessary choices between persons. Unless a preference suddenly develops, the pragmatic thing to do is to appoint both and to leave it to the co-chairs to sort out the details, both now and in a year's time at the next selection moment. I somehow feel a consensus developing here in roughly that direction. Daniel On 25/04/2019 16:08, Jim Reid wrote:
On 25 Apr 2019, at 07:49, Peter Koch <pk@DENIC.DE> wrote:
I do not see a need for a continued beauty contest but would like to suggest instead to appoint both Sandoche and Peter.
Well, I want a pony and I want it now. :-)
1) The WG's agreed co-chair selection procedure does not permit a double appointment.
2) Appointment and co-chair terms are deliberately staggered to allow for succession planning and continuity. Installing two candidates at the same time destroys that.
3) The agreed appointment process is actually in progress. It would not be fair to the candidates or the WG to rip all that up and start again. That would also be confusing for everyone. More so when the current process is under way and hopefully close to a resolution.
4) Changing the rules without good reason -- just "get on with it" is not a strong enough justification IMO -- sets a very dangerous and ugly precedent. How many more RIPE processes will we choose to ignore whenever we feel like it? Think carefully about the consequences of going down that path.
5) A new appointment process would need to be agreed and activated to appoint both Sandoche and Peter. Handwave, handwave. Assuming they'd be the only candidates. Given how long it took for the WG to reach consensus on the current process, I doubt a replacement mechanism could be found quickly or that the WG would reach consensus on it any time soon: certainly not before RIPE78. And then once that new process was put into effect, we'd need to allow several weeks for candidates to come forward and the WG reach consensus on who they want. That's already proving difficult. Fewer than 10 or so people have expressed a preference for either Peter or Sandoche so far.
That would ease the onboarding process, as well.
It would do the very opposite because the WG would be lead by two fine individuals who had never run a RIPE WG before and now find themselves thrown in at the deep end. _______________________________________________ iot-wg mailing list iot-wg@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/iot-wg
participants (7)
-
Daniel Karrenberg -
e.vanuden＠avm.de -
Gordon Lennox -
Jim Reid -
Johan Helsingius -
Patrik Fältström -
Peter Koch