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

Some observations and opinions.
by Lars-Johan Liman 19 Jul '18

19 Jul '18

Hi! TL;DR;version: This is mostly quite OK, but a few clarifications are needed. I also have a few questions about left-out parts. I took a look at the proposed process, and there is much about it that I like. However, I think there are few areas where I think we need to make sure that there is consensus in the wider community. I want to lift the following passages "for inspection", if only to hear 200x of "yes, that's good!". ;-) COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED TEXT ----------------------------- The selection process should be lightweight and easy to implement but documented for clarity and accountability purposes. Most importantly, it should be determined by consensus within the RIPE community. Liman: for the mentioned accountability puprposes, it also need to be described in a _concise_ manner. It must be easy for and "auditor" to determine whether the process has been followed or not. The candidate pool The NomCom will solicit nominations from the community and publish a list of suitable candidates. Liman: I think we might want to add a few words to suppport the term "suitable", aiming to make a statement that the NomCom should strive to be non-discriminatory in producing its slate, and that variety in gender and other parameters is to be encouraged. However, that might already be sufficiently well stated in "general" documents for RIPE and its activities, and if so, I suggest adding text to the process that refers to these other documents (in order to avoid duplicating text). The selection process After a shortlist of potential candidates has been identified, the NomCom will hand it over to the WG Chair collective who will make the final decision. The WG Chair collective will actively gather feedback from the community about each candidate. Based on this feedback, the WG Chairs collective will select the best candidate for the job. Liman: This process worries me somewhat. The WG chairs are put in place for their qualities when it comes to leading work in the WGs, not because of their opinions and judgement wrt. selecting a RIPE chair. (No offence to the current WG Chairs.) These are distinctly different qualities. At a bare minimum we must make sure that these added WG Chair responsibilities are made very obvious to the people who select the WG Chairs, so that informed decisions can be made. Tenure The RIPE Chair will serve a five-year term ... Liman: this strikes me as a rather long tenure. It needs to be long enough for the chair to build up experience and become useful, and some projects that the Chair might initiate could take long time. OTOH, finding people who are willing and able to make the necessary committments for such a long tenure could possibly limit the pool of candidates to people with "large and wealthy" organisations behind them, who can afford to support this work for extended periods. In addition, if a selected Chair turns out to perform poorly, having to wait five years for an opportunity to replace him/her strikes me as a long time. ... with a two-term limit. Liman: I support this _strongly_! In my view the two-term limit is non-negotiable. I've seen how bad it can be when there is no term limit. No chair is so outstanding that this rule needs to be broken. However, the text is inconclusive about whether a candidate can be eligible for more two-term tenures after having stepped down for a year after a first (i.e., allowed to do a "comeback"). I usually say "yes, they can" when this is asked, but my only strong opinion is that it should be well-defined in the text. Vice Chair A new RIPE Vice Chair role will be created to support the RIPE Chair. This role will be filled according to the same process as that used for the RIPE Chair selection. There is no assumption that the Vice Chair would automatically become the RIPE Chair by default, but they would be free to put themselves forward (to be considered by the NomCom) for a vacant RIPE Chair position. This is all good, but needs to be augmented (probably elsewhere) with a clear description of the responsibilies of the Vice Chair vis-à-vis those of the Chair, so that both the candidates and the community understand what's expected. OTHER COMMENTS -------------- * The _process_ through which the WG Chairs finally arrive at their decision about a new chair is not defined here. Is it defined in other documents? Need it be at all, or will it just make the entier process unnecessarily heavy-weight? * Should there be a way to forcefully relieve a Chair of his/her duties? Are we sufficiently convinced that the NomCom is able to weed out bad candidates, so the probability that this will be needed is so low that we don't spend effort on it here and now? Is it defined elsewhere? Shall we deal with that problem if it hits us? The latter could work for me, as long as we all agree that that's the proposed way forward. * What happens if a non-neglectable group of members of the comomunity feel that the selection process hasn't been followed appropriately? RIPE Arbiters? External auditor? Further steps? Need we define at all? YOUR DIRECT QUESTIONS --------------------- Do you agree that a NomCom is a good way to identify a list of potential candidates? Liman: yes, this is a good idea. It's proven to work well in other communities (e.g., the IETF). Do you agree that a tenure of five years with a two-term limit is a suitable way to ensure continuity, stability and the opportunity for change in the RIPE community? Liman: not entirely. Limit is paramount, though! See my comment above. Do you agree that having a RIPE Vice Chair would be useful and that the Vice Chair should be selected following the same process as the RIPE Chair? Liman: yes, this is a good idea, but see my comment above. I now look forward to respectful, intense, and refreshing discussion. BRING IT ON! :-) :-) :-) Cheers, /Liman #---------------------------------------------------------------------- # Lars-Johan Liman, M.Sc. ! E-mail: liman(a)netnod.se # Senior Systems Specialist ! Tel: +46 8 - 562 860 12 # Netnod Internet Exchange, Stockholm ! http://www.netnod.se/ #----------------------------------------------------------------------

5 14

Proposal for a RIPE Chair Selection Process
by Mirjam Kuehne 16 Jul '18

16 Jul '18

Dear colleagues, Based on community discussions, including a recent plenary session at RIPE 76, we've developed a proposal for the RIPE Chair selection process. We are now seeking comments from you on a number of specific elements: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/mirjam/proposal-for-a-ripe-chair-selection-pr… Kind regards, Mirjam Kühne RIPE NCC

2 3

Status of RIPE Chair discussion?
by Shane Kerr 06 Jun '17

06 Jun '17

All, Another RIPE meeting has come and gone, but I don't remember any discussion about the missing RIPE Chair stuff - either the job description or appointment procedure. Honestly I'm not sure what to do. While there does not seem to be a lot of enthusiasm for this work, it seems like the kind of thing that should move forward before it is needed. Perhaps we just need to wait for the accountability task force to remind us that we don't have these things? Or do we need to declare the RIPE Chair list a task force so that Daniel will insist that we have a deadline? ;) Cheers, -- Shane

23 73

RIPE Mailing List Code of Conduct
by Hans Petter Holen 23 May '17

23 May '17

The RIPE community’s strength comes from its breadth of experience, diversity of views, and an open, respectful exchange of ideas. These are values that we want all of our community members to uphold. Please treat each other with tolerance and respect. Free speech and an open exchange of ideas is encouraged and celebrated. Demeaning, intimidating or harming other community members is wrong. We are especially sensitive to behaviour that offends based on gender, sexual orientation, religion, race or ethnic origin, or other perceived social, cultural, or personal differences. RIPE community members should not spam mailing lists, post others' personal information, register multiple accounts to avoid moderation or mislead participants, impersonate others, or make threats. Overt marketing or promotional activities are discouraged. Chairs are responsible for facilitating and moderating the RIPE community's discussions. At times they may direct an individual to cease a certain type of behaviour. Chairs have the authority to moderate or ban disruptive community members if they decide this is necessary. If you believe that someone is behaving contrary to this code of conduct, please inform the relevant Chair or the RIPE Chair. -- Sincerely, Hans Petter Holen - hph(a)oslo.net - +47 45066054

4 3

Re: [ripe-chair-discuss] Status of RIPE Chair discussion?
by Job Snijders 18 May '17

18 May '17

On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 01:23:03PM +0200, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: > On 18.05.17 13:19 , Job Snijders wrote: > > On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 01:08:23PM +0200, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: > >> Otherwise I think we have positive movement and maybe even rough > >> consensus??????? > > > > Sure, if you ignore the people that stated that "selected as needed" is > > not acceptable. > > I referred to Rob Evans' proposal: "The RIPE Chairperson is appointed > by his/her predecessor, but serves the RIPE community." Perhaps I am missing something glaring obvious, but you are suggesting there may be concensus on rob's proposal, which arrived 45 minutes ago in my mailbox, and to which I have seen only 1 reply (namely yours)? On topic: the methodology of a chair appointing the next chair does not look sound to me. It reeks of dynasty and may introduce loss of peripheral vision. Kind regards, Job

2 1

RIPE Chair appointment procedure, some ideas
by Carlos Friacas 18 Nov '16

18 Nov '16

Greetings, I mostly agree with Gordon Lennox. >From the discussion at RIPE73 in Madrid, i also agree with the idea of having a Vice-Chair. When the Chair steps down, the Vice-Chair could automatically become Chair (if he/she accepts). When a new Vice-Chair appointment is needed, i would say the best recruiting base would be the WG Chairs group (currently more than 20 people, right?). Either asking the WG Chair with more time on his/her record on that role/group to step up as Vice-Chair, or run an election process if two (or more) WG Chairs wish to become Vice-Chair on the same opportunity, sounds acceptable to me. We can also strenghten this by requiring that the new Vice-Chair is supported by *N* WG Chairs, despite its current time count as a WG Chair. I would also argue that former WG Chairs should be "eligible" -- especially if noone from the current set of WG Chairs wants to become Vice-Chair. And if time count becomes a criteria, all the time spent on the WG Chair role should be considered. Best Regards, ______________ Carlos Friaças Coordenador do RCTS CERT / Head of RCTS CERT (www.cert.rcts.pt) Fundação para Ciência e a Tecnologia, I.P. (www.fct.pt) Unidade FCCN - Computação Científica Nacional (www.fccn.pt) Av. do Brasil, 101, 1700-066 Lisboa, Portugal [+351] 218440100

8 17

(no subject)
by Lynn Blokzijl 27 Oct '16

27 Oct '16

1 0

RIPE Chair Job description
by Shane Kerr 23 Oct '16

23 Oct '16

All, Is there a document which actually documents what the RIPE Chair actually is? Sorry if I missed it, I don't think this exists. Perhaps such a document would be a good starting point for the discussion? We have a nice web page talking about *who* the chair is: https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/ripe-chair We also have a RIPE Document which describes what the job of a RIPE working group chairs, RIPE 542: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-542 Somewhat related, we also have a document describing the RIPE Programme Committee, RIPE 600: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-600 Note that writing down what the RIPE Chair is does not need to be super detailed, or restrictive. Hopefully it can be done in a page or two of text. Cheers, -- Shane

9 15

Fwd: [ripe-list] Mailing list for discussion of RIPE Chair selection
by Nick Hyrka 07 Oct '16

07 Oct '16

Hello, To help stimulate discussion on the subject, I am forwarding Hans Petter's mail to this list. Regards, Nick Hyrka Communications Manager RIPE NCC -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [ripe-list] Mailing list for discussion of RIPE Chair selection Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2016 22:58:50 +0400 From: Hans Petter Holen <hph(a)oslo.net> Reply-To: hph(a)oslo.net To: ripe-list(a)ripe.net Dear colleagues, When Rob Blokzijl stepped down as RIPE Chair, he asked that I put the wheels in motion to establish a selection procedure for future RIPE Chairs. At the last meeting I presented a proposal for how this could happen to start the discussion. https://labs.ripe.net/Members/hans_petter_holen/draft-ripe-chair-election-p… The RIPE Chair represents you, the RIPE community. This community has been, and always will be, driven bottom up and by consensus. Your ideas and input form the foundation of what this selection procedure will look like. Key questions for a procedure are: * Who can be selected as RIPE Chair * Who will select the RIPE Chair * How will the selection happen? Should we have an election? Decided by a show of hands at a RIPE Meeting? Evoting? A selection panel? A vetting process by the RIPE Working Group Chairs? Should there be a RIPE Vice Chair? Your involvement and consensus on the selection procedure is crucial. We've established a dedicated mailing list for this discussion: ripe-chair-discuss(a)ripe.net <mailto:ripe-chair-discuss@ripe.net> To subscribe to the list, please visit https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ripe-chair-discuss/ -- Sincerely, Hans Petter Holen RIPE Chair

1 0