All, During the charter discussion, some of you suggested to appoint a co-chair. Most RIPE working groups have more than one chair person. In the past, I have never felt the necessity to do this job with more than one person. However, in the spirit that it is always good to try something new or different, we can certainly add a co-chair if the working group believes this to be beneficial for achieving our goals. Considering that we don't have any formal process for appointing a working group chair, there is no standard on how this is achieved in a transparent and fair way. This might have been acceptable in the early days of RIPE when there were far fewer people involved and governments weren't watching us. Given that there is an interest in appointing an additional cochair, this seems an excellent opportunity to achieve something more than just appointing a co-chair: if we define an open process and are happy with the results, we can propose the process as a RIPE policy proposal to the wider community for the appointment of chair people within RIPE. At the same time, I don't believe we should overregulate and loose one of the key benefits of our loosely organized community. Therefore, my personal preference would be to formulate a set of principles that we need to follow to appoint chair people while the actual implementation can vary depending on the position that needs to be filled. I would first like to hear what people think about this. If there is support, I would like to form a small task force to write a first version of the principles and how we plan to implement them in the ipv6 working group. David Kessens ---
On Thursday 14 January 2010 07:30:35 David Kessens wrote: I find this a very good idea in general. Regards, Kostas Zorbadelos
All,
During the charter discussion, some of you suggested to appoint a co-chair.
Most RIPE working groups have more than one chair person. In the past, I have never felt the necessity to do this job with more than one person. However, in the spirit that it is always good to try something new or different, we can certainly add a co-chair if the working group believes this to be beneficial for achieving our goals.
Considering that we don't have any formal process for appointing a working group chair, there is no standard on how this is achieved in a transparent and fair way. This might have been acceptable in the early days of RIPE when there were far fewer people involved and governments weren't watching us.
Given that there is an interest in appointing an additional cochair, this seems an excellent opportunity to achieve something more than just appointing a co-chair: if we define an open process and are happy with the results, we can propose the process as a RIPE policy proposal to the wider community for the appointment of chair people within RIPE.
At the same time, I don't believe we should overregulate and loose one of the key benefits of our loosely organized community. Therefore, my personal preference would be to formulate a set of principles that we need to follow to appoint chair people while the actual implementation can vary depending on the position that needs to be filled.
I would first like to hear what people think about this. If there is support, I would like to form a small task force to write a first version of the principles and how we plan to implement them in the ipv6 working group.
David Kessens ---
David, I find the goals laudable and support them. I would however propose a different workflow. The rationale behind the suggestion below takes into account the following points: - The IPv6 could use some fresh air now rather than later. This is not to say that you have not been doing a good job, I think you have, rather that sometimes a new point of view adds to the outcome and the additional resources generally yield additional results. - the process development you describe can take some time and would be applicable not only for the IPv6 wg but to all other wgs as well. So perhaps a broader group than just the IPv6 wg would be a better choice of venue. I will leave initial suggestions for that choice to Rob Blokzijl as RIPE Chair. so, with the above in mind, I would suggest a) getting a new co-chair onboard now using the current informal process, by the people in this wg mailing list, with anyone who wants to volunteer sending their expression of interest to the list followed by expressions of support. b) once the process you propose in your message has been developed and eventually accepted, all wg chairs, and possibly the RIPE Chair as well, go through it and renew or not, as the case maybe, their roles. Joao On 14 Jan 2010, at 06:30, David Kessens wrote:
All,
During the charter discussion, some of you suggested to appoint a co-chair.
Most RIPE working groups have more than one chair person. In the past, I have never felt the necessity to do this job with more than one person. However, in the spirit that it is always good to try something new or different, we can certainly add a co-chair if the working group believes this to be beneficial for achieving our goals.
Considering that we don't have any formal process for appointing a working group chair, there is no standard on how this is achieved in a transparent and fair way. This might have been acceptable in the early days of RIPE when there were far fewer people involved and governments weren't watching us.
Given that there is an interest in appointing an additional cochair, this seems an excellent opportunity to achieve something more than just appointing a co-chair: if we define an open process and are happy with the results, we can propose the process as a RIPE policy proposal to the wider community for the appointment of chair people within RIPE.
At the same time, I don't believe we should overregulate and loose one of the key benefits of our loosely organized community. Therefore, my personal preference would be to formulate a set of principles that we need to follow to appoint chair people while the actual implementation can vary depending on the position that needs to be filled.
I would first like to hear what people think about this. If there is support, I would like to form a small task force to write a first version of the principles and how we plan to implement them in the ipv6 working group.
David Kessens ---
David, I'd like to agree with João here. I worry that putting such a framework in place may mean that we reach the next meeting with most of a process but no co-chair, whereas it would be much better to have a co-chair in place to progress the work of the IPv6 WG. I firmly believe that this will benefit the WG and the RIPE community more, certainly between now and Prague and I think in the longterm, than putting that energy towards the process. Brian. "João Damas" wrote the followingon 14/01/2010 10:35:
David, I find the goals laudable and support them. I would however propose a different workflow.
The rationale behind the suggestion below takes into account the following points: - The IPv6 could use some fresh air now rather than later. This is not to say that you have not been doing a good job, I think you have, rather that sometimes a new point of view adds to the outcome and the additional resources generally yield additional results. - the process development you describe can take some time and would be applicable not only for the IPv6 wg but to all other wgs as well. So perhaps a broader group than just the IPv6 wg would be a better choice of venue. I will leave initial suggestions for that choice to Rob Blokzijl as RIPE Chair.
so, with the above in mind, I would suggest a) getting a new co-chair onboard now using the current informal process, by the people in this wg mailing list, with anyone who wants to volunteer sending their expression of interest to the list followed by expressions of support.
b) once the process you propose in your message has been developed and eventually accepted, all wg chairs, and possibly the RIPE Chair as well, go through it and renew or not, as the case maybe, their roles.
Joao
On 14 Jan 2010, at 06:30, David Kessens wrote:
All,
During the charter discussion, some of you suggested to appoint a co-chair.
Most RIPE working groups have more than one chair person. In the past, I have never felt the necessity to do this job with more than one person. However, in the spirit that it is always good to try something new or different, we can certainly add a co-chair if the working group believes this to be beneficial for achieving our goals.
Considering that we don't have any formal process for appointing a working group chair, there is no standard on how this is achieved in a transparent and fair way. This might have been acceptable in the early days of RIPE when there were far fewer people involved and governments weren't watching us.
Given that there is an interest in appointing an additional cochair, this seems an excellent opportunity to achieve something more than just appointing a co-chair: if we define an open process and are happy with the results, we can propose the process as a RIPE policy proposal to the wider community for the appointment of chair people within RIPE.
At the same time, I don't believe we should overregulate and loose one of the key benefits of our loosely organized community. Therefore, my personal preference would be to formulate a set of principles that we need to follow to appoint chair people while the actual implementation can vary depending on the position that needs to be filled.
I would first like to hear what people think about this. If there is support, I would like to form a small task force to write a first version of the principles and how we plan to implement them in the ipv6 working group.
David Kessens ---
I too agree with Joao. Fernando El 14/01/2010, a las 11:35, João Damas escribió:
David, I find the goals laudable and support them. I would however propose a different workflow.
The rationale behind the suggestion below takes into account the following points: - The IPv6 could use some fresh air now rather than later. This is not to say that you have not been doing a good job, I think you have, rather that sometimes a new point of view adds to the outcome and the additional resources generally yield additional results. - the process development you describe can take some time and would be applicable not only for the IPv6 wg but to all other wgs as well. So perhaps a broader group than just the IPv6 wg would be a better choice of venue. I will leave initial suggestions for that choice to Rob Blokzijl as RIPE Chair.
so, with the above in mind, I would suggest a) getting a new co-chair onboard now using the current informal process, by the people in this wg mailing list, with anyone who wants to volunteer sending their expression of interest to the list followed by expressions of support.
b) once the process you propose in your message has been developed and eventually accepted, all wg chairs, and possibly the RIPE Chair as well, go through it and renew or not, as the case maybe, their roles.
Joao
On 14 Jan 2010, at 06:30, David Kessens wrote:
All,
During the charter discussion, some of you suggested to appoint a co-chair.
Most RIPE working groups have more than one chair person. In the past, I have never felt the necessity to do this job with more than one person. However, in the spirit that it is always good to try something new or different, we can certainly add a co-chair if the working group believes this to be beneficial for achieving our goals.
Considering that we don't have any formal process for appointing a working group chair, there is no standard on how this is achieved in a transparent and fair way. This might have been acceptable in the early days of RIPE when there were far fewer people involved and governments weren't watching us.
Given that there is an interest in appointing an additional cochair, this seems an excellent opportunity to achieve something more than just appointing a co-chair: if we define an open process and are happy with the results, we can propose the process as a RIPE policy proposal to the wider community for the appointment of chair people within RIPE.
At the same time, I don't believe we should overregulate and loose one of the key benefits of our loosely organized community. Therefore, my personal preference would be to formulate a set of principles that we need to follow to appoint chair people while the actual implementation can vary depending on the position that needs to be filled.
I would first like to hear what people think about this. If there is support, I would like to form a small task force to write a first version of the principles and how we plan to implement them in the ipv6 working group.
David Kessens ---
-- Tecnocom Fernando García Fernández D.G. Integración de Redes y Sistemas Josefa Valcarcel, 26 Edificio Merrimack III Madrid - 28027 Tel. Fijo: 901900900 ext 40383 Fax: (+34) 914313240 Tel. Móvil: (+34) 649428591 E-mail: fernando.garcia@tecnocom.es http://www.tecnocom.es
Hi, I also belive what Joao points out... I hate to see all this bureaucracy taking over time that could be used for something creative. Best regards Ragnar B. Us Mjollnir s.p. On 14.1.2010 11:35, João Damas wrote:
David, I find the goals laudable and support them. I would however propose a different workflow.
The rationale behind the suggestion below takes into account the following points: - The IPv6 could use some fresh air now rather than later. This is not to say that you have not been doing a good job, I think you have, rather that sometimes a new point of view adds to the outcome and the additional resources generally yield additional results. - the process development you describe can take some time and would be applicable not only for the IPv6 wg but to all other wgs as well. So perhaps a broader group than just the IPv6 wg would be a better choice of venue. I will leave initial suggestions for that choice to Rob Blokzijl as RIPE Chair.
so, with the above in mind, I would suggest a) getting a new co-chair onboard now using the current informal process, by the people in this wg mailing list, with anyone who wants to volunteer sending their expression of interest to the list followed by expressions of support.
b) once the process you propose in your message has been developed and eventually accepted, all wg chairs, and possibly the RIPE Chair as well, go through it and renew or not, as the case maybe, their roles.
Joao
On 14 Jan 2010, at 06:30, David Kessens wrote:
All,
During the charter discussion, some of you suggested to appoint a co-chair.
Most RIPE working groups have more than one chair person. In the past, I have never felt the necessity to do this job with more than one person. However, in the spirit that it is always good to try something new or different, we can certainly add a co-chair if the working group believes this to be beneficial for achieving our goals.
Considering that we don't have any formal process for appointing a working group chair, there is no standard on how this is achieved in a transparent and fair way. This might have been acceptable in the early days of RIPE when there were far fewer people involved and governments weren't watching us.
Given that there is an interest in appointing an additional cochair, this seems an excellent opportunity to achieve something more than just appointing a co-chair: if we define an open process and are happy with the results, we can propose the process as a RIPE policy proposal to the wider community for the appointment of chair people within RIPE.
At the same time, I don't believe we should overregulate and loose one of the key benefits of our loosely organized community. Therefore, my personal preference would be to formulate a set of principles that we need to follow to appoint chair people while the actual implementation can vary depending on the position that needs to be filled.
I would first like to hear what people think about this. If there is support, I would like to form a small task force to write a first version of the principles and how we plan to implement them in the ipv6 working group.
David Kessens ---
João, On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 11:35:54AM +0100, João Damas wrote:
I find the goals laudable and support them. I would however propose a different workflow.
While I understand that most people don't want to spend time on writing down how we select chair people (or reappoint them), I believe it has to be done at some point. This will never get done if we keep postponing this every time a new person needs to be appointed. To address your concerns about time frames, I would like to take a 'running code' approach. Let's describe how we want to do this and do it. As there is no official policy on this, we don't have to wait until a formal policy has been established before we can follow our own plan. As an example, your text from below could serve as a good starting point for the implementation part. While you claim your proposal is the current 'informal process' it seems a lot more transparent already than how most current chair people got into their positions! David Kessens --- On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 11:35:54AM +0100, João Damas wrote:
David, I find the goals laudable and support them. I would however propose a different workflow.
The rationale behind the suggestion below takes into account the following points: - The IPv6 could use some fresh air now rather than later. This is not to say that you have not been doing a good job, I think you have, rather that sometimes a new point of view adds to the outcome and the additional resources generally yield additional results. - the process development you describe can take some time and would be applicable not only for the IPv6 wg but to all other wgs as well. So perhaps a broader group than just the IPv6 wg would be a better choice of venue. I will leave initial suggestions for that choice to Rob Blokzijl as RIPE Chair.
so, with the above in mind, I would suggest a) getting a new co-chair onboard now using the current informal process, by the people in this wg mailing list, with anyone who wants to volunteer sending their expression of interest to the list followed by expressions of support.
b) once the process you propose in your message has been developed and eventually accepted, all wg chairs, and possibly the RIPE Chair as well, go through it and renew or not, as the case maybe, their roles.
Joao
On 14 Jan 2010, at 06:30, David Kessens wrote:
All,
During the charter discussion, some of you suggested to appoint a co-chair.
Most RIPE working groups have more than one chair person. In the past, I have never felt the necessity to do this job with more than one person. However, in the spirit that it is always good to try something new or different, we can certainly add a co-chair if the working group believes this to be beneficial for achieving our goals.
Considering that we don't have any formal process for appointing a working group chair, there is no standard on how this is achieved in a transparent and fair way. This might have been acceptable in the early days of RIPE when there were far fewer people involved and governments weren't watching us.
Given that there is an interest in appointing an additional cochair, this seems an excellent opportunity to achieve something more than just appointing a co-chair: if we define an open process and are happy with the results, we can propose the process as a RIPE policy proposal to the wider community for the appointment of chair people within RIPE.
At the same time, I don't believe we should overregulate and loose one of the key benefits of our loosely organized community. Therefore, my personal preference would be to formulate a set of principles that we need to follow to appoint chair people while the actual implementation can vary depending on the position that needs to be filled.
I would first like to hear what people think about this. If there is support, I would like to form a small task force to write a first version of the principles and how we plan to implement them in the ipv6 working group.
David Kessens ---
David Kessens ---
On 14 Jan 2010, at 17:10, David Kessens wrote:
João,
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 11:35:54AM +0100, João Damas wrote:
I find the goals laudable and support them. I would however propose a different workflow.
While I understand that most people don't want to spend time on writing down how we select chair people (or reappoint them), I believe it has to be done at some point. This will never get done if we keep postponing this every time a new person needs to be appointed.
I disagree and I think the current PDP documentation is proof.
To address your concerns about time frames, I would like to take a 'running code' approach. Let's describe how we want to do this and do it. As there is no official policy on this, we don't have to wait until a formal policy has been established before we can follow our own plan.
OK, I think I already did put forward a suggestion. What I would not want is to have these 2 separate processes (in both time and scope, remember the general policy you are asking for applies to more than just the ipv6 wg) remain separate. Therefore proceed with them in parallel and not delay any for the other.
As an example, your text from below could serve as a good starting point for the implementation part. While you claim your proposal is the current 'informal process' it seems a lot more transparent already than how most current chair people got into their positions!
I won't make any comment here (though I am tempted to insert a "speak for yourself" here ;) Joao
On 14 Jan 2010, at 10:35, João Damas wrote:
- the process development you describe can take some time and would be applicable not only for the IPv6 wg but to all other wgs as well. So perhaps a broader group than just the IPv6 wg would be a better choice of venue. I will leave initial suggestions for that choice to Rob Blokzijl as RIPE Chair. [...] a) getting a new co-chair onboard now using the current informal process, by the people in this wg mailing list, with anyone who wants to volunteer sending their expression of interest to the list followed by expressions of support.
As I understand it, the selection of a WG chair and associated decisions (like, how many chairs to have) is deliberately left to the working group, so that at any given time, the community is free to select the organisational structure that best reflects the work they want to do at that time. This methodology seems in line with the spirit of how the community does other work. I suggest that : - If this is not the view of the community as a whole, then, in any case, this working group is not the place to discuss far-reaching community structure policy ! - If there is consensus to appoint a co-chair, we should ask interested parties to inform the current chair. If there is one interested party, and the community agree consensus to proceed, then we have a new co-chair. Where there are several people wishing to stand and no community consensus to proceed with one, we may wish to hold an election _in this instance_ to select our new chair. This is broadly what I recall the process was when I stood for eix-wg co-chair. My 2p. Andy
Andy, On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 04:46:02PM +0000, Andy Davidson wrote:
As I understand it, the selection of a WG chair and associated decisions (like, how many chairs to have) is deliberately left to the working group, so that at any given time, the community is free to select the organisational structure that best reflects the work they want to do at that time.
I agree. I would like to write this down and I think you just did a great job in doing so.
I suggest that :
- If this is not the view of the community as a whole, then, in any case, this working group is not the place to discuss far-reaching community structure policy !
My goal is foremost to define how we want to approach the working group chair selection process in the ipv6 wg. I deliberately want to hear how we are supposed to do this from our community as opposed to me just proposing yet another ad-hoc process that is based on how we did it in the past or some other random working group. After that, I would like to bring up the same topic for RIPE as a whole as I believe it would be a waste to repeat this excersize over and over again (this would obviously not be a topic for the ipv6 working group alone). Note that I mentioned in my first mail, that I believe that it is useful to write down the principles, but that the actual implementation could be different as long as we follow certain minimum standards of openness and transparency.
- If there is consensus to appoint a co-chair, we should ask interested parties to inform the current chair. If there is one interested party, and the community agree consensus to proceed, then we have a new co-chair. Where there are several people wishing to stand and no community consensus to proceed with one, we may wish to hold an election _in this instance_ to select our new chair.
This is broadly what I recall the process was when I stood for eix-wg co-chair.
I personally like several aspects of how the eix working group approached this and I am certainly interested to duplicate this (and write it down). David Kessens ---
On 14 Jan 2010, at 17:29, David Kessens wrote:
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 04:46:02PM +0000, Andy Davidson wrote:
As I understand it, the selection of a WG chair and associated decisions (like, how many chairs to have) is deliberately left to the working group, so that at any given time, the community is free to select the organisational structure that best reflects the work they want to do at that time.
I agree. I would like to write this down and I think you just did a great job in doing so.
Thank you for saying that. Let's see the call for candidates then... :-) Andy
Hi, On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 04:46:02PM +0000, Andy Davidson wrote:
- If there is consensus to appoint a co-chair, we should ask interested parties to inform the current chair. If there is one interested party, and the community agree consensus to proceed, then we have a new co-chair. Where there are several people wishing to stand and no community consensus to proceed with one, we may wish to hold an election _in this instance_ to select our new chair. This is broadly what I recall the process was when I stood for eix-wg co-chair.
For some funny reason, everybody wants to be EIX-WG co-char, indeed :-) For APWG it's more along the lines of "if somebody brave enough volunteers, and there is no objection from the community, he gets to do the work". So your description matches the "not fully established, not so formal" process for these two WGs quite well. Gert Doering -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 144438 SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
On 14 Jan 2010, at 17:46, Andy Davidson wrote:
On 14 Jan 2010, at 10:35, João Damas wrote:
- the process development you describe can take some time and would be applicable not only for the IPv6 wg but to all other wgs as well. So perhaps a broader group than just the IPv6 wg would be a better choice of venue. I will leave initial suggestions for that choice to Rob Blokzijl as RIPE Chair. [...] a) getting a new co-chair onboard now using the current informal process, by the people in this wg mailing list, with anyone who wants to volunteer sending their expression of interest to the list followed by expressions of support.
As I understand it, the selection of a WG chair and associated decisions (like, how many chairs to have) is deliberately left to the working group, so that at any given time, the community is free to select the organisational structure that best reflects the work they want to do at that time.
This methodology seems in line with the spirit of how the community does other work.
I agree. I have tried to not say anything about that part of the discussion because this mailing is not the venue, as you say.
I suggest that : - If this is not the view of the community as a whole, then, in any case, this working group is not the place to discuss far-reaching community structure policy ! - If there is consensus to appoint a co-chair, we should ask interested parties to inform the current chair. If there is one interested party, and the community agree consensus to proceed, then we have a new co-chair. Where there are several people wishing to stand and no community consensus to proceed with one, we may wish to hold an election _in this instance_ to select our new chair. This is broadly what I recall the process was when I stood for eix-wg co-chair.
sounds good to me, at least. Let's see who the volunteers are then. Joao
Perfekt :-P /O -----Original Message----- From: ipv6-wg-admin@ripe.net [mailto:ipv6-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of João Damas Sent: den 14 januari 2010 21:02 To: Andy Davidson Cc: ipv6-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg] working group co-chair(s) On 14 Jan 2010, at 17:46, Andy Davidson wrote:
On 14 Jan 2010, at 10:35, João Damas wrote:
- the process development you describe can take some time and would be applicable not only for the IPv6 wg but to all other wgs as well. So perhaps a broader group than just the IPv6 wg would be a better choice of venue. I will leave initial suggestions for that choice to Rob Blokzijl as RIPE Chair. [...] a) getting a new co-chair onboard now using the current informal process, by the people in this wg mailing list, with anyone who wants to volunteer sending their expression of interest to the list followed by expressions of support.
As I understand it, the selection of a WG chair and associated decisions (like, how many chairs to have) is deliberately left to the working group, so that at any given time, the community is free to select the organisational structure that best reflects the work they want to do at that time.
This methodology seems in line with the spirit of how the community does other work.
I agree. I have tried to not say anything about that part of the discussion because this mailing is not the venue, as you say.
I suggest that : - If this is not the view of the community as a whole, then, in any case, this working group is not the place to discuss far-reaching community structure policy ! - If there is consensus to appoint a co-chair, we should ask interested parties to inform the current chair. If there is one interested party, and the community agree consensus to proceed, then we have a new co-chair. Where there are several people wishing to stand and no community consensus to proceed with one, we may wish to hold an election _in this instance_ to select our new chair. This is broadly what I recall the process was when I stood for eix-wg co-chair.
sounds good to me, at least. Let's see who the volunteers are then. Joao
Hi, Thus wrote David Kessens (david.kessens@nsn.com):
At the same time, I don't believe we should overregulate and loose one of the key benefits of our loosely organized community. Therefore, my personal preference would be to formulate a set of principles that we need to follow to appoint chair people while the actual implementation can vary depending on the position that needs to be filled.
Question is, ought it be an appointment (eg by the current chair(s)), or a vote? and if a vote, who ought to be eligible to be a voter? People who attend RIPE meetings, or including all 'mere' mailing list members? Or even wider? In this case, "who" has a lot of influence on "how" (eg, for the latter and case something like a Usenet style vote might be ok, for the first just lift hands at the next meeting). Does anyone feel a need for a secret vote? they are much harder to do unless you trust the vote taker absolutely. regards, spz -- spz@serpens.de (S.P.Zeidler)
David, On 2010-01-14 06:30, David Kessens wrote:
During the charter discussion, some of you suggested to appoint a co-chair.
<snippity/> I would be honored to act as a co-chair for the IPv6 working group. (Ignoring the question as to what selection process is actually used.) Sadly, I will not be at the next RIPE meeting... while I normally attend them RIPE 60 conflicts with a trip I had planned before I knew the meeting dates. I will be able to attend the IPv6 sessions remotely. I realize that this isn't a great situation to apply for co-chair, but there really isn't anything I can do about it. :( I would still be happy to help with organizing the content for the meeting, and trying to come up with other constructive ways to meet the goals of the new charter. I'm assuming this is most of the work, rather than microphone time. :) -- Shane
On 21 jan 2010, at 14:06, Shane Kerr wrote:
David,
On 2010-01-14 06:30, David Kessens wrote:
During the charter discussion, some of you suggested to appoint a co-chair.
<snippity/>
I would be honored to act as a co-chair for the IPv6 working group. (Ignoring the question as to what selection process is actually used.)
Sadly, I will not be at the next RIPE meeting... while I normally attend them RIPE 60 conflicts with a trip I had planned before I knew the meeting dates. I will be able to attend the IPv6 sessions remotely.
I realize that this isn't a great situation to apply for co-chair, but there really isn't anything I can do about it. :(
I would still be happy to help with organizing the content for the meeting, and trying to come up with other constructive ways to meet the goals of the new charter. I'm assuming this is most of the work, rather than microphone time. :)
I was kinda waiting for the process to get some shape, but I'm happy to take up a position as co-chair for this working group as well. In the meantime, we could try and make organising the comming WG session a sort of group effort. Getting a proper procedure to select a co- chair can be part of this, although in my personal opinion we can stick to what was done in other WGs on previous occassions. Groet, MarcoH
Marco Hogewoning wrote:
I was kinda waiting for the process to get some shape, but I'm happy to take up a position as co-chair for this working group as well. In the meantime, we could try and make organising the comming WG session a sort of group effort. Getting a proper procedure to select a co-chair can be part of this, although in my personal opinion we can stick to what was done in other WGs on previous occassions.
Agree and support your and Shane's step-forward for a co-chair position. (really can't decide for just one of you two guys, both seems a good choice to me :) Also agree with proposed procedure. Regards, Jan Zorz
On 21 jan 2010, at 15:32, Jan Zorz @ go6.si wrote:
Marco Hogewoning wrote:
I was kinda waiting for the process to get some shape, but I'm happy to take up a position as co-chair for this working group as well. In the meantime, we could try and make organising the comming WG session a sort of group effort. Getting a proper procedure to select a co-chair can be part of this, although in my personal opinion we can stick to what was done in other WGs on previous occassions.
Agree and support your and Shane's step-forward for a co-chair position.
Thanks
(really can't decide for just one of you two guys, both seems a good choice to me :)
It wouldn't be the first WG who has 3 co-chairs and for the sake of redundancy it might be better. Groet, MarcoH
"João Damas" wrote the followingon 21/01/2010 14:53:
On 21/01/2010, at 15:39, Marco Hogewoning <marcoh@marcoh.net> wrote:
It wouldn't be the first WG who has 3 co-chairs and for the sake of redundancy it might be better.
Right. That seems to have worked well for other wgs. I also support both candidates.
Sounds like an excellent plan! Brian.
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 5:53 PM, João Damas <joao@bondis.org> wrote:
On 21/01/2010, at 15:39, Marco Hogewoning <marcoh@marcoh.net> wrote:
It wouldn't be the first WG who has 3 co-chairs and for the sake of redundancy it might be better.
Right. That seems to have worked well for other wgs. I also support both candidates.
+1 -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
Hi all,
Agree and support your and Shane's step-forward for a co-chair position.
(really can't decide for just one of you two guys, both seems a good choice to me :)
+1 Sander
participants (15)
-
Andy Davidson -
Brian Nisbet -
David Kessens -
García Fernández, Fernando -
Gert Doering -
Jan Zorz ＠ go6.si -
João Damas -
Kostas Zorbadelos -
Marco Hogewoning -
McTim -
Ove Thomasson -
S.P.Zeidler -
Sander Steffann -
Shane Kerr -
Us