Andy, On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 10:39:21AM +0000, Andy Davidson wrote:
On 22/01/2010 06:23, David Kessens wrote:
As mentioned earlier, I would like to write down our approach for co-chair selection. This would help us to have an open and transparent process to get a cochair appointed, but also help in the future for other working groups as either an example or at the minimum that they can use the same set of principles.
No, it will hinder the process completely and possibly hurt the culture of flexibility and pragmatism that has served us well for so long.
Please stop this work item.
We have had this discussion before. If you read the proposal you would find that the only thing that is mandated are certain very basic principles on openness and transparency and that the actual implementation can vary per selection (I borrowed heavily from your own words on this matter!). In any case, as Shane also mentioned, it is probably not a good idea to have a discussion here that touches on things that go beyond the ipv6 working group. Let's have that discussion with the whole RIPE community and limit ourselves here to how the ipv6 working group deals with this issue.
As there is no standardized process for working group selection, this section serves as an example only and describes on how the IPv6 working group is currently selecting its co-chairs.
Let this be the process explicitly for *this election*, and not for the working group as a whole.
I personally prefer to use a somewhat consistent process within the working group. However, there is a clear reason why the text in the proposal text states that it is an example: we can at any time decide to do this in a different way if the working group believes a different process makes more sense. David Kessens ---