- ripe-chair-discuss - mailman.ripe.net

Polishing of RIPE Chair Selection Process
by Daniel Karrenberg 17 Oct '22

17 Oct '22

Greetings, The RIPE NomCom 2020 recommended to make the following improvements to the RIPE Chair selection process [ripe-762]: Consider changing ripe-728 to codify the use of a reserve list of volunteers in case voting members resign from the committee. Consider clarifying the example time-lines in ripe-727 and ripe-728 in the light of experience On request of the RIPE Chair I have drafted the attached revisions to these documents implementing these recommendations. Notes: Using a reserve list is not without alternatives. The IETF has had much relevant discussion about 'gaming' the volunteer selection process recently; see https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/eligibility-discuss/# . My experience as NomCom chair strongly suggests to avoid complicating the procedures beyond the endurance of the volunteers involved. A simple reserve list is sufficient for our purposes. A wording change in ripe-728 tightens the time for getting the NomCom organised from 60 days prior to the consultation RIPE meeting to 90 days prior. This is necessary to enable the full NomCom rather than just the NomCom chair to issue the call for nominations. The time line appendix should be removed entirely from ripe-728 and the one in ripe-727 should be replaced with the attached one. Let's avoid cluttering the ripe-list and discuss this over on our venerable ripe-chair-discuss list please. Daniel

1 0

NomCom
by Daniel Karrenberg 25 May '20

25 May '20

I just sent a longish request for support to the RIPE list. Please respond there. Daniel --- Sent from a handheld device.

1 0

Re: [ripe-chair-discuss] Chair nomination process
by Job Snijders 18 May '20

18 May '20

On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 01:38:08PM +0100, Carlos Friaças wrote: > On Thu, 14 May 2020, Job Snijders wrote: > > (...) > > Let's please buy ourselves more time to refine this process. > > How? > > Our current Chair (interim-Chair or interim-interim-Chair) is already in > full capacity at the RIPE NCC. You are probably right, this shouldn't linger for more than a few months. > Can we make him the interim-interim-interm-Chair? > I start to see some similarities with a certain runout :-) I think it would be much in the spirit of how HPH was selected & confirmed (and compatible with the 'Pragmatism' section of RIPE-728) to just trust HPH to indeed pick an RIPE interim-interim-interim-Chair for now. Plenty of people trusted HPH enough to transform his role to RIPE NCC GM, so whoever HPH picks is fine with me. A new process has been bootstrapped, many have invested a lot of time to get here (thank you!), and its even said this is the most formal process we have so far. Perhaps we consider it a false start and try again with some tweaks? I believe the current NOMCOM (voting+non-voting) was selected through a fair process, those volunteers should be given the opportunity to make a selection for the confirming bodies in the near future. That part doesn't need to be repeated. I think it'll only take a few months to revise the process and design appropriate resource assignment & checks and balances & get resources assigned while the RIPE PDP works efficiently. Clearly many of us are now engaged, and I assume committed to provide productive feedback. The RIPE Chair has clearly documented duties, and the existence of this selection process confirms the position is deemed necessary by many in the community. Kind regards, Job

10 10

Re: [ripe-chair-discuss] Chair nomination process
by Andy Davidson 18 May '20

18 May '20

Hi, Gert Doering wrote on Thu May 14 11:11:40 CEST 2020: > So, yes, I think input from RIR staff can be very valuable to policy > building - the community is watching, and I fully trust the community > to call "STOP!" if something questionable is proposed. May I? STOP I have spent a while reading the archives and just become more familiar with ripe-727/8. I feel that I should have become more active before now. The independence of "RIPE" and the RIPE NCC is written into our DNA and I support Nurani's statement that this independence "sits at the heart of our community values". "RIPE", the community, created the RIPE NCC as our secretariat, as forever described in ripe-19, which I copy from for the list's convenience: " o RIPE defines the tasks and functions of the NCC o the NCC reports to RIPE " ... ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-019.txt -727/8 should be read in the context of -19, and whilst the NCC Executive Board appoints the chair of the RIPE Nominating Committee, the spirit of -19 should influence the NCCEB's selection of a Nomcom chair. This person should come from the community and certainly NOT the NCC secretariat, and plainly for reasons of good governance. Especially when the authors of ripe-728 include a Nominee and a chair of the RIPE Nominating Committee. This is not a complaint about any specific person, the contributions of the NCC people involved as nominees or in the Nomcom have been significant to the internet over the years. I don't think that the concerns that Nick has raised in his email to this list of the evening of the 12th have even slightly been addressed: Nick Hillard wrote on Tue May 12 22:46:42 CEST 2020: > This isn't a statement of lack of confidence in any of the people > concerned, either individually or collectively, but it looks troubling > from the point of view of governance practices. > In the future, anyone should be able to look back at the nomination > process and with full hindsight, feel comfortable that it was sound. I > am not completely sure that we are in this position right now. Yes. These are good people! This governance practice is broken. The nomination process is not sound. So let's help the next chair now by ensuring the independence of the RIPE Nominating Committee from the NCC. Andy

2 1

Greetings from the NomCom
by Daniel Karrenberg 15 May '20

15 May '20

Greetings, I confirm that the NomCom has been following discussions here and is hearing them. We have decided to take a break for a few days, and then consider all the input we have received during the meeting week. We *suggest* you do the same. Stay healthy and have a great weekend Daniel

1 0

Chair nomination process
by Nick Hilliard 15 May '20

15 May '20

Dear all, Probably like many others, I haven't been following the RIPE Chair nomination process as closely as it has deserved over the last number of months. At the moment, the lineup looks like this: - the current RIPE chair is now - with safeguards in place - the RIPE NCC managing director. - one of the candidates is the previous chair of the RIPE NCC executive board. - one of the candidates is a current employee of the RIPE NCC. - the chair of the nom-com is a current employee of the RIPE NCC. This isn't a statement of lack of confidence in any of the people concerned, either individually or collectively, but it looks troubling from the point of view of governance practices. In the future, anyone should be able to look back at the nomination process and with full hindsight, feel comfortable that it was sound. I am not completely sure that we are in this position right now. Nick

17 64

Re: [ripe-chair-discuss] Chair nomination process
by Job Snijders 14 May '20

14 May '20

Dear all, On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 11:59:38AM +0200, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: > Just to get the premises right: you keep claiming that a Spanish wall > between RIPE and the RIPE NCC is either codified in or processes or > our practice. As Gert pointed out the former is not the case. I have > pointed out anecdotal evidence that the latter is not a tradition > either. So claiming that this ‘sits at the heart of our community > values’ appears far fetched to me. If the practise of this wall does not exist in tradition, why does it appear to me most RIPE NCC employees are discouraged to speak out in public? Corollary, I think the notion of a difference between RIPE and RIPE NCC appears to exist from the very process this mailing list is about (selection chair/vice chair positions for RIPE, which clearly is different than selecting leadership positions in RIPE NCC). None of what follows below appears optimal to me. I have confidence in the individuals involved, but my confidence in the process's ability to be executed and conclude successfully at present is faltering a bit. I recognise a lot of people put a lot of work into this project, as such what I share here may result in hurt. :-( At the end of the day this is all about real humans and the real Internet, where we must protect each other from the negative impact of conflict of interest. Possible paths forward, hopefully pragmatic: 1/ Until we have more clarity/consensus on the intertwined RIPE & RIPE NCC story, for me the current situation is drastically simplified if staff members of the RIPE NCC do not appear on the list of eligible nominees presented to the NOMCOM. However, if we follow through on that we may end up with a slate of 3 people, to fill 2 positions, which as Nurani pointed out might not be sufficient for robust process. :-( 2/ Another approach could be to (*before* completing this year's NOMCOM process) ensure that whoever are selected & confirmed will be given an opportunity to become salaried employees of the RIPE NCC organisation. This would create a somewhat more level playing field for all nominees (and of course whoever is confirmed will not be terminated after their term is up, or what would the community expect to happen here?). 3/ Restart the process as many times is needed until a sufficiently large pool of nominees exists so the confirming body has more assurances proper deliberations resulted in the selection. Even if one does not see potential for conflict of interest in the current situation, I do see potential for significant trouble should conflict of interest arise at any future point in time. Let's please buy ourselves more time to refine this process. Kind regards, Job

1 0

Re: [ripe-chair-discuss] Chair nomination process
by Daniel Karrenberg 13 May '20

13 May '20

On 13 May 2020, at 19:50, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: > Further: what Sander said. Sorry, I misspoke. I meant ‘what Gert said’: “So what do you suggest to actually *do* now?” Daniel

1 0

IESG invited guest at the WG Chairs Training at RIPE 79
by Hans Petter Holen 30 Aug '19

30 Aug '19

The IETF has similar challenges as the RIPE community, and Warren Kumari from the IESG has expressed interest in participating in the training. I think this is an excellent idea to support RIPE - IETF relationships. Unless there are any objections I will invite him to join us for this training. -- Sincerely, Hans Petter Holen - hph(a)oslo.net - +47 45066054

2 2

Where is consensus happening?
by Rob Evans 22 May '19

22 May '19

Hi, During the social last night I realised that I'd come away from the BoF yesterday with a different interpretation of the subject we nearly rat-holed on, and that's where the consensus call is happening. I expected it would be on ripe-list as this is a community thing, but the person I was talking with said they thought it would be this list. Cheers, Rob Jisc is a registered charity (number 1149740) and a company limited by guarantee which is registered in England under Company No. 5747339, VAT No. GB 197 0632 86. Jisc’s registered office is: One Castlepark, Tower Hill, Bristol, BS2 0JA. T 0203 697 5800. Jisc Services Limited is a wholly owned Jisc subsidiary and a company limited by guarantee which is registered in England under company number 2881024, VAT number GB 197 0632 86. The registered office is: One Castle Park, Tower Hill, Bristol BS2 0JA. T 0203 697 5800.

4 3