I agree three is a good number like any good old raid setup. // Andreas Andreas Larsen IP-Only AB | Postadress: 753 81 UPPSALA | Besöksadress Uppsala: S:t Persg 6 Besöksadress Stockholm: N Stationsg 69 | Vxl: +46 18 843 10 00 | Mobil +46 70 843 10 56 www.ip-only.se 18 maj 2014 kl. 11:39 skrev Jan Zorz @ go6.si <jan@go6.si>:

On 18/05/14 10:00, Marco Hogewoning wrote:

...

First question to the group: how many working group chairs do you want in the end?

Seems like that 3 works fine as there is enough "resiliency" and also diversity :)

cheers, Jan

Hi Marco and list, Marco Hogewoning <marcoh@marcoh.net> writes:

Please wait a bit :) a) there might be others

Right. I suggest we wait at least for another week. (Anyone who thinks that this is too short speak up now.)

b) as much as we don’t like overhead, let’s come up with some procedure c) I need to have a chat with Shane on exactly how we are going to do this

I suggest this: We wait until Monday next week and see if anybody else volunteers. If there are, then I'd personally like a discussion among us volunteers about what team would make most sense. If we don't reach a result that way, we might have to come up with some sort of voting or such. Otherwise, I guess we're pretty much settled anyway.

I had several people including one of the candidates asking for a soft landing, where Shane and I gradually remove ourselves out of this, rather than just running off. So at a minimum we need to fix this in terms of timelines.

From somewhat similar personal experiences in the past, this is absolutely essential.

How about this: Once we've come up with the new team, we add the new team to the ipv6-wg-chair mailing list in an "advisory" role and eventually swap "active chair" and "advisory" roles between the old and new crowd. We can sort out the timing and sequence of swaps later on.

Also it is not a given that there must be three, I think 4 is too many and you definitely need 2 for redundancy. First question to the group: how many working group chairs do you want in the end?

I agree that four is too many; more often than not that leads to everyone expecting everyone else to either do things or take the blame for some screw-up, plus the extra hassle of getting ourselves coordinated (even real world scheduling problems are NP-hard...). But I'd rather not go with a team of two: We all have our daytime jobs, and as such there will be times when some of us are simply unavailable for several days. With only two of us I think this is just asking for trouble. And this isn't only about redundancy, but also about covering IPv6 from different perspectives. Dave has an ISP background, Jen sort of represents the contents side and as far as I am concerned, I am mostly all over the place but with some extra understanding for the eyeball and small/medium business side, among other things. That looks like a well-balanced team to me. And finally, from what I've seen of Jen and Dave so far, as far as I am concerned I think I can get along with them nicely to actually work as a team. Cheers, Benedikt -- Benedikt Stockebrand, Stepladder IT Training+Consulting Dipl.-Inform. http://www.stepladder-it.com/ Business Grade IPv6 --- Consulting, Training, Projects BIVBlog---Benedikt's IT Video Blog: http://www.stepladder-it.com/bivblog/

I'd suggest to wait a bit longer to give a chance to people who are on vacation currently. What about waiting till, let's say, EOB Fri June 6th (nice date, btw) so it will be 3+ weeks since the initial announcement.

Seems like a reasonable plan, as far as the rest of the decision making process goes…might be worth to give Shane and me some time to fix a proper proposal, which will be sent to the list. Until then, nothing can be considered final :) Grtx, MarcoH -- "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again"

Hi

a) there might be others

Thanks. I thought of volunteering as well, but it took me some time to get the support of my management. Quickly there was a good team of candidates, and I decided to drop the matter. Thanks to your email, but still with a feeling of uncertainty, I'm now sending my application. About myself: I may not be well know to the RIPE community, but I've attended RIPE meetings regularly once per year since RIPE39. I worked for an Italian then European ISP for several years, until the burst of the bubble pushed me to CERN; I've been working in the Network Engineering team since. I've supervised the IPv6 deployment at CERN that I presented last week; I'm involved in the working group that is pushing IPv6 adoption in the High Energy Physics community. My organisation was one of the founder of RIPE and hosted several of the first meetings. It's an LIR, serving few international organizations in the Geneva area. It hosts a RIS server (04), an Atlas Anchor and few probes, a K-root instance.

First question to the group: how many working group chairs do you want in the end?

I agree three people can make an effective and resilient team Edoardo

Yes, The plan is to replace all of us, but we will create some overlap to provide continuity and some institutional memory to the new group. So please stay tuned for a more detailed plan and timelines, which we can hopefully produce and present to the working group for approval in the coming weeks. Grtx, MarcoH -- "Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving" -- Albert Einstein On 22 May 2014, at 11:07, Yannis Nikolopoulos <dez@otenet.gr> wrote:

I'm confused. Are you (Marco) and Shane also going to (eventually) step down? I hope not. Also, about the right number of co-chairs, I think 2 is the one, but 3 seems to work for this WG.

cheers, Yannis

On 05/18/2014 11:00 AM, Marco Hogewoning wrote:

...

Please wait a bit :)

a) there might be others b) as much as we don’t like overhead, let’s come up with some procedure c) I need to have a chat with Shane on exactly how we are going to do this

I had several people including one of the candidates asking for a soft landing, where Shane and I gradually remove ourselves out of this, rather than just running off. So at a minimum we need to fix this in terms of timelines.

Also it is not a given that there must be three, I think 4 is too many and you definitely need 2 for redundancy.

First question to the group: how many working group chairs do you want in the end?

Thanks,

Marco

On 17 mei 2014, at 19:53, Roger Jψrgensen <rogerj@gmail.com> wrote:

...

On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 7:37 PM, Jan Zorz @ go6.si <jan@go6.si> wrote: <snip>

...

But now we've got 3 very good candidates - Jen, Dave and Benedikt - and I think we should rotate them in. Excellent suggestion, let's rotate Jen, Dave and Benedikt in.

--

Roger Jorgensen | ROJO9-RIPE rogerj@gmail.com | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | roger@jorgensen.no