Proposed procedure for ipv6 working group cochair selection process
All, 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. I believe that this request already has resulted in a quite bit useful discussion on a few things that we should, or shouldn't do and many of you mentioned that it would be useful if we don't wait too long as our new charter would also be a good starting point for the appointment of (an) additional cochair(s). Below, I will summarize some of the key principles that I came away with and my initial idea on how to start the process. Since these are initial ideas, I very much welcome your input or if you would be interested in volunteering to work out the text further. At the same time, there doesn't seem to be much disagreement about the first step of the process so I would like to start with that step right away: an open call for candidates. I realize that there is a bit of risk involved on starting this before we have agreed on the full process: however, there has been already quite a bit discussion on the list on the general direction and I have confidence in our community that we will be able to find a workable solution along the way. I will send a seperate mail with an official call for nominations. David Kessens --- Date: Thu Jan 21 21:36:39 PST 2010 Draft Proposal on handling of chair position selection within the RIPE community RIPE (Réseaux IP Européens) is a collaborative forum open to a parties interested in wide area IP networks in Europe and beyond. Work is carried out within a variety of working groups. Each of these working groups has more than one co-chair. The selection process for a chair position 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. Working group chairs are responsible for organizing the working groups activities as defined in their charters. In addition, they are required to participate in the policy making process to judge and ensure that the RIPE policy making process has been properly followed after new policy proposals have been accepted by a working group (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/pdp.html). While the actual implementation of the chair position selection process is on purpose not codified in any process document, it is expected that such a process follows the same principles as outlined in the RIPE policy development process: 1. It is open to all and follows an established, bottom-up process of collaboration. Everyone interested in the well-being of the Internet may propose a policy and take part in the discussions that follow on from the proposal. 2. It is transparent. All discussions and resulting actions are documented and freely available to all. 3. Conclusions are reached by consensus. 4. All policies are documented within RIPE Documents and placed in the RIPE Document Store The same dispute resolution process as used for the policy development applies to cochair selection process or results of the process. The Process 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. The following is a proposal only and it has not been decided on how to continue after the nomination step. - Call for nominations of more than 7 days (self nominations being ok) - During the same time period: 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 - If the discussion period seems to result in a consensus decision, a last call of more than 7 days is issued or - Each nominee writes a short statement to the WG Mailinglist - Election using single transferable vote (we need to figure out whether we can do this online or wheter this is better done at the meeting) ----
David, On 2010-01-22 07:23, 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.
Regardless of my feelings about this proposal, the IPv6 working group is not the right place to discuss issues that affect the entire RIPE community. At least, I don't remember seeing "RIPE meta-policy development" on the new IPv6 working group charter. ;) I'm not sure what the correct forum is - perhaps <ripe-list@ripe.net>, or perhaps in the smoke-filled room where the working group chairs make their global world domination plans. But I'm pretty sure that it's out of scope for this working group. An invitation to participate in this is surely appropriate to send to the IPv6 working group, and also to every other RIPE working group. Thanks, -- Shane
Shane, On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 11:09:50AM +0100, Shane Kerr wrote:
On 2010-01-22 07:23, 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.
Regardless of my feelings about this proposal, the IPv6 working group is not the right place to discuss issues that affect the entire RIPE community.
At least, I don't remember seeing "RIPE meta-policy development" on the new IPv6 working group charter. ;)
I think it is perfectly fine to write down what we are doing here to appoint cochairs and to ask whether some people are willing to help me with that (that is what I did). We are obviously not going to develop any of this into full policy proposal on the ipv6 working group list (I already mentioned this a few times as well). I agree with you that ripe-list@ripe.net might be the best place for doing that. David Kessens ---
Hello David and all. I have contradictory feelings about this proposal, in one side some organisation is good in another "rough consesus" is how the ietf and mostly ripe works and is working well since 1989 (21 years). In any case I'm sure the IPv6 is not the correct place to post this proposal but I encourage to propose it in the plenary of the next RIPE meeting. In the meantime I think that we should apply the de-facto standard for chairs and co-chairs election: Some proposals (in the mailing list o in the WG) and if everybody agrees, usually one or two weeks are left for people to express his opinions and silence is always considered agree, rough consensus is reached and the chairs are elected. Just my two cents. El 22/01/2010, a las 07:23, David Kessens escribió:
All,
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.
I believe that this request already has resulted in a quite bit useful discussion on a few things that we should, or shouldn't do and many of you mentioned that it would be useful if we don't wait too long as our new charter would also be a good starting point for the appointment of (an) additional cochair(s).
Below, I will summarize some of the key principles that I came away with and my initial idea on how to start the process. Since these are initial ideas, I very much welcome your input or if you would be interested in volunteering to work out the text further.
At the same time, there doesn't seem to be much disagreement about the first step of the process so I would like to start with that step right away: an open call for candidates.
I realize that there is a bit of risk involved on starting this before we have agreed on the full process: however, there has been already quite a bit discussion on the list on the general direction and I have confidence in our community that we will be able to find a workable solution along the way.
I will send a seperate mail with an official call for nominations.
David Kessens ---
Date: Thu Jan 21 21:36:39 PST 2010
Draft Proposal on handling of chair position selection within the RIPE community
RIPE (Réseaux IP Européens) is a collaborative forum open to a parties interested in wide area IP networks in Europe and beyond.
Work is carried out within a variety of working groups. Each of these working groups has more than one co-chair.
The selection process for a chair position 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.
Working group chairs are responsible for organizing the working groups activities as defined in their charters. In addition, they are required to participate in the policy making process to judge and ensure that the RIPE policy making process has been properly followed after new policy proposals have been accepted by a working group (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/pdp.html).
While the actual implementation of the chair position selection process is on purpose not codified in any process document, it is expected that such a process follows the same principles as outlined in the RIPE policy development process:
1. It is open to all and follows an established, bottom-up process of collaboration. Everyone interested in the well-being of the Internet may propose a policy and take part in the discussions that follow on from the proposal. 2. It is transparent. All discussions and resulting actions are documented and freely available to all. 3. Conclusions are reached by consensus. 4. All policies are documented within RIPE Documents and placed in the RIPE Document Store
The same dispute resolution process as used for the policy development applies to cochair selection process or results of the process.
The Process
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.
The following is a proposal only and it has not been decided on how to continue after the nomination step.
- Call for nominations of more than 7 days (self nominations being ok)
- During the same time period: 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
- If the discussion period seems to result in a consensus decision, a last call of more than 7 days is issued
or
- Each nominee writes a short statement to the WG Mailinglist
- Election using single transferable vote (we need to figure out whether we can do this online or wheter this is better done at the meeting)
----
-- 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
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.
Draft Proposal on handling of chair position selection within the RIPE community
Fiercely oppose.
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. Andy
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 ---
On 22 Jan 2010, at 06:23, David Kessens wrote:
- Election using single transferable vote (we need to figure out whether we can do this online or wheter this is better done at the meeting)
We do both in EIX. We setup a gmail account for the receipt of votes for external voters, this is accessed by the vote taker, in our case we have asked Roland Perry to do it both times. He is not NCC staff, although he is a consultant to them, independent and outside the operational arena but a known member of the community. We also print out voting papers for people to use at the meeting and distribute and collect them using volunteers. Roland then takes the voting papers and a laptop to a different room to do the count, using STV, Single Transferable Vote. The software we use is from the Electoral Reform Society in the UK, http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/ . More details on STV can be found here - http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/article.php?id=48 . The software is available at: http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/votingsystems/estv.htm To run an election for a WG the registered version of the software would be required as it will hopefully have more than 50 voters. The count usually takes around half an hour and Roland announces the result to the WG. We usually run the vote in the second session allowing time for people to have a last minute nomination in the first session. We rely on people's honesty to not vote by email and on paper, the election results so far have been sufficiently clear that ballot stuffing of the received email votes would have made no difference. HTH f
participants (5)
-
Andy Davidson -
David Kessens -
Fearghas McKay -
García Fernández, Fernando -
Shane Kerr