jim@rfc1035.com:
It's a reasonable concern. Though it should be simple to resolve if that situation arises: "We don't want you any more. Go now."
On 16 Jul 2018, at 22:19, Carlos Friaças <cfriacas@fccn.pt> wrote:
Have you seen that approach working anywhere...?
(<chuckle!> :-) Relevant question. ;-) )
Yes. We did this a few years ago to get rid of a WG co-chair who'd lost the confidence of their WG.
Without questioning the effectiveness of this, and only to understand the process used at the time: who were the "we" in "we did that ...".
Maybe: "Upon receiving a request to step down from <N> community members, the NomCom and(/or?) the WGCC decide if the Chair has to step down or not."
Nope. I think the community has to take that decision by consensus. Nobody else. If the community is screaming for someone's head on a stick, asking the NomCom or WGCC to make a judgement about that would/should be a no-op. So there's nothing gained by introducing that redundant step or steps.
WFM.
What is a "community member"?
I would probably define this as someone who has attended a RIPE meeting in the last <N> years, or with relevant participation in mailing lists, acknowledged by WG Chairs.
That question is the start of an infinite rat-hole Carlos. Best stay out of it.
Rathole: agreed. (... which is also one reason that trying to define democratic processes in the RIPE community is such a beast. It's hard to define democracy in a constituency, when the constituency itself isn't well defined. But: challenge accepted! ;-) ) All in all, especially with Jims assertion that there is "prior art", I'm willing to live with a "deal with it if it comes to that" solution, in order to avoid ratholing and to avoid having to create a Minotaurian labyrinth of legalese in the document. Cheers, /Liman PS. We could end the entire document with "act guided by intelligence and experience!", as fiction detective Nero Wolfe's handyman Archie Goodwin used to say. ;-) ;-) ;-)