Garc¨ªa Fern¨¢ndez, Fernando <Fernando.Garcia@tecnocom.es>
Garc¨ªa Fern¨¢ndez, Fernando <Fernando.Garcia@tecnocom.es>
§°§ä: ipv6-wg-admin@ripe.net
04.02.2010 01:56
§¬§à§Þ§å
"ipv6-wg@ripe.net" <ipv6-wg@ripe.net>
§¬§à§á§Ú§ñ
§´§Ö§Þ§Ñ
Re: [ipv6-wg] Discussion period for co-chair selection until 20100208
After reading their own introduction and knowing both candidates from several RIPE meetings, I give my support to both of them to be co-chairs. I think and odd number is good as break in discussions.
El 03/02/2010, a las 23:44, David Kessens escribi¨®:
>
> All,
>
> The call for candidates for co-chairs of the IPv6 working group has
> resulted in two candidates. See below for their names and a link to the
> mailing list with their motivations and plans for the working group:
>
> Shane Kerr
> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/ipv6-wg/2010/msg00038.html
>
> Marco Hogewoning
> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/ipv6-wg/2010/msg00041.html
>
> This brings us to the next step in our process:
>
> 1) The nominees are given a chance to determine whether they want to
> be considered or withdraw as they decided that there are other
> good candidates already available
>
> 2) The community may express opinions that could help the
> candidates to come to a decision on whether they want to
> be continued to be considered as a candidate
> - the community may consider appointing more than one co-chair
> in case of several good candidates
>
> Let's take until the end of Mon Feb 8, 2010 in a timezone of your
> choice to determine an outcome for both 1) and 2).
>
> I already have seen some discussion regarding point 2) and it leads me
> to believe that there is at least some support to appoint both
> candidates as co-chairs.
>
> Before making such a determination though, I would like to see a bit
> more discussion/comments, especially from people who have not taken a
> position yet on this topic.
>
> Basically, knowing our candidates, I would like to hear from you
> whether you prefer to appoint one or two co-chairs, and whether you
> have any preference for either candidate in case you believe one
> co-chair is enough.
>
> Note that this period is for open discussion and that it is perfectly
> fine to do alternate proposals.
>
> Our objective is to see if we can come to a consensus which allows us
> to avoid more complex ways of making a selection such as a vote.
>
> After our discussion period is over, I will determine if there is
> enough basis to do a Last Call to confirm a selection decision as
> determined from our discussion phase, or whether we perhaps need a bit
> more time for discussion or that we will have to resort to organizing
> a vote.
>
> I hope this helps,
>
> David Kessens
> ---
>
--
Tecnocom
Fernando Garc¨ªa Fern¨¢ndez
D.G. Integraci¨®n de Redes y Sistemas
Josefa Valcarcel, 26 Edificio Merrimack III
Madrid - 28027
Tel. Fijo: 901900900 ext 40383
Fax: (+34) 914313240
Tel. M¨®vil: (+34) 649428591
E-mail: fernando.garcia@tecnocom.es http://www.tecnocom.es