Discussion period for co-chair selection until 20100208
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 ---
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 escribió:
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 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
2010/2/4 García Fernández, Fernando <Fernando.Garcia@tecnocom.es>:
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.
+1 -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
On 02/04/2010 07:48, Jan Zorz @ go6.si wrote:
McTim wrote:
2010/2/4 García Fernández, Fernando <Fernando.Garcia@tecnocom.es>:
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.
+1
+1
Jan Zorz
I believe that is a great reasoning... Odd numbers are useful Ragnar Belial Us
I agree with Fernando. WBR, Dmitry Menzulskiy, AKA DM3740-RIPE García Fernández, Fernando <Fernando.Garcia@ Кому tecnocom.es> "ipv6-wg@ripe.net" От: <ipv6-wg@ripe.net> ipv6-wg-admin@rip Копия e.net Тема Re: [ipv6-wg] Discussion period 04.02.2010 01:56 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 escribió:
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 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
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.
+1 Sander
On 3 feb 2010, at 23:44, David Kessens wrote:
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.
Hi All, I had a short chat with Shane this afternoon and we would like you to know we as candidated would prefer the option to appoint two co-chairs. Shane and I have known eachother for quite some time and our goals and objectives for the future of the IPv6 working group are the same, we both are looking forward working with David and the community to live up to the new charter en make IPv6 a succes. Thanks for all the support so far, MarcoH and Shane
OK +1 for me Lionel HOFFMANN Direction Technique Tel: 01 39 45 42 76 Mob: 06 60 31 42 76 Email: lhoffman@bouyguestelecom.fr Adresse: Centre d'affaires La Boursidiere RN186 92355 LE PLESSIS ROBINSON cedex -----Message d'origine----- De : ipv6-wg-admin@ripe.net [mailto:ipv6-wg-admin@ripe.net] De la part de David Kessens Envoyé : mercredi 3 février 2010 23:44 À : ipv6-wg@ripe.net Objet : [ipv6-wg] Discussion period for co-chair selection until 20100208 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 --- L'intégrité de ce message n'étant pas assurée sur internet, la société expéditrice ne peut être tenue responsable de son contenu ni de ses pièces jointes. Toute utilisation ou diffusion non autorisée est interdite. Si vous n'êtes pas destinataire de ce message, merci de le détruire et d'avertir l'expéditeur. The integrity of this message cannot be guaranteed on the Internet. The company that sent this message cannot therefore be held liable for its content nor attachments. Any unauthorized use or dissemination is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, then please delete it and notify the sender.
On Thursday 04 February 2010 00:44:05 David Kessens wrote: Hello all, as a relatively newcomer to this community, I would like to learn more about the duties and responsibilities of a WG [co]chair. As I understand it, the appointment procedures are quite informal with all the merits and shortcomings that come with it. Having said this, I have the impression that 3 people are better than one or two. I have met both candidates, read their comments for the WG and I support them both. I also think it would be a good idea for other people to come forward as well. The migration to IPv6 needs all the effort and support it can get, having active and expanding WG / forums such as this. Regards, Kostas Zorbadelos
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.
---
Kostas, On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 02:45:50PM +0200, Kostas Zorbadelos wrote:
as a relatively newcomer to this community, I would like to learn more about the duties and responsibilities of a WG [co]chair.
Please see below in the attached draft document for co-chair responsibilities. Note that this a draft document that contains some known issues and is here and there out of date but it should give you an idea on what co-chairs are supposed to do. Let me know if you have any questions, David Kessens --- Version: 2.4: May 19 2009 Working Group Chair Job Description 1) Introduction The purpose of this document is to describe the role, responsibility and expectations associated with RIPE Working Group (WG) Chairs. The document is divided into the following sections: - WG Chairs and Co-Chairs - Creating WG Charters - Updating WG charters - Policy Development Process (PDP) Responsibilities - RIPE Meeting Responsibilities 2) Working Group Chairs and Co-Chairs WG Chairs and Co-Chairs should always make it clear whether they speak on behalf of themselves, the organisations they work for or the WG for which they are Chair or Co-Chair. RIPE WGs have two different ways of dividing up the responsibilities of the WG Chair(s): WG Chair Model and Equal Co-Chair Model. The model that is used depends upon the specific needs, history and set-up of a particular WG. i) WG Chair Model In this model, a WG Chair has overall responsibility for the WG and can be supported by Co-Chairs. These Co-Chairs can assist with general WG support and can deputise for the WG Chair if he/she is not able to attend a RIPE Meeting. ii) Equal Co-Chair Model In this model, the Co-Chairs share the responsibility for PDP and RIPE Meeting activities. The Co-Chairs act together to make any formal statements (for example on policy development) that are relevant to their WG. For each RIPE Meeting, one of the Co-Chairs serves as the primary contact for the WG and for session organisational matters. 3) Creating Working Group Charters i) Working Group Created from a Task Force A WG usually emerges from a Task Force. In this case, the procedure for creating the WG Charter is as follows: The head of the Task Force creates the Charter for the new WG in consultation with other members of the Task Force. Once this has been agreed, and approved by the RIPE Chair, the Charter for the new WG is officially recognised. ii) New Working Group Emerging from an Existing WG If a new WG emerges from an existing WG then the Charter for the new WG should be drawn up by the Chairs and Co-Chairs of the new and existing WG. Once this has been agreed, and approved by the RIPE Chair, the Charter for the new WG is officially recognised. 4) Updating Working Group Charters If a WG Chair needs to update the WG charter, he/she needs to have the text approved by the WG Co-Chairs before presenting the revised charter to the WG for their approval via the WG mailing list and/or at a RIPE Meeting. 5) Policy Development Process (PDP) Responsibilities WG Chairs are expected to: - Stay up-to-date with all phases of a policy proposal relevant to their WG - Follow discussions on the relevant WG mailing list(s) - Guide mailing list discussions as appropriate - Take charge of PDP milestone decisions relevant to their WG - Ensure PDP milestone decisions keep to the timeframe as described in the RIPE PDP Document - Make a collective, final decision supported by a reasonable level of awareness as to whether a particular policy proposal has received consensus - Inform the RIPE NCC when a policy proposal has received consensus and should become a RIPE Document Note - In a WG with an equal Co-Chair model (see 2(i)), these responsibilities are shared between the Co-Chairs. 6) RIPE Meetings Responsibilities i) General/Plenary WG Chairs are expected to: - Attend RIPE Meetings or send a Co-Chair as their deputy - Help develop the RIPE Meeting Plenary Agenda through the <eofcoord@ripe.net> mailing list - Lead a Plenary session as agreed in advance of the meeting and pass on any action points that are decided in this Plenary session to the relevant WG Note - In a WG with an equal Co-Chair model (see 2(i)), these responsibilities are shared between the Co-Chairs. ii) Working Group Specific WG Chairs are expected to: - Solicit relevant presentations for the WG session - Post a draft agenda for their WG session (at least 2-3 weeks before a RIPE Meeting where possible) - Lead the WG session and encourage active participation - Present a short summary (including actions and highlights) from their WG in the closing Plenary session at the RIPE Meeting - Review and approve the minutes from their WG session (4 - 6 weeks-) - Attend WG Chair lunches during RIPE Meetings - Attend WG Chair meetings between RIPE Meetings - Update the action list of their WG after the RIPE Meeting Note - In a WG with an equal Co-Chair model (see 2(i)), one Co-Chair takes overall responsibility for these activities at a particular RIPE Meeting. ---
On Wednesday 10 February 2010 02:36:50 David Kessens wrote: Thank you David, nice work. Is this document part of a work in progress that will eventually be published somewhere? Documents like these can help newcomers understand how RIPE WG communities operate and also add to the openness of these forums. Regards, Kostas
Kostas,
On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 02:45:50PM +0200, Kostas Zorbadelos wrote:
as a relatively newcomer to this community, I would like to learn more about the duties and responsibilities of a WG [co]chair.
Please see below in the attached draft document for co-chair responsibilities. Note that this a draft document that contains some known issues and is here and there out of date but it should give you an idea on what co-chairs are supposed to do.
Let me know if you have any questions,
David Kessens ---
Version: 2.4: May 19 2009
Working Group Chair Job Description ...
Kostas, On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 11:04:44AM +0200, Kostas Zorbadelos wrote:
Is this document part of a work in progress that will eventually be published somewhere?
We don't have a written down process for such a type of document but essentially it gets updated when somebody picks up the authorship again and does an update. I cannot speak for the other working group chair people but I will personally support that it will be officially published if it is a bit more ready.
Documents like these can help newcomers understand how RIPE WG communities operate and also add to the openness of these forums.
I fully agree. David Kessens ---
participants (10)
-
David Kessens -
Dmitriy V Menzulskiy -
García Fernández, Fernando -
HOFFMANN, Lionel -
Jan Zorz ＠ go6.si -
Kostas Zorbadelos -
Marco Hogewoning -
McTim -
Sander Steffann -
Us