Carlos, At 2016-11-15 22:49:17 +0000 Carlos Friacas <cfriacas@fccn.pt> wrote:
From the discussion at RIPE73 in Madrid, i also agree with the idea of having a Vice-Chair.
Yes, I think having a vice-chair makes sense. Probably the role would be something like: 1. Serve as Chair if the Chair is temporarily or permanently unable to perform Chair duties. 2. Assist the Chair in any way that the Chair and Vice-Chair find reasonable.
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?).
So you think that the Chair selection process should actually be the Vice-Chair selection process? I'm not sure about that. It seems like being a Vice-Chair should be about helping the Chair, not just waiting around for the Chair to retire. ;) If we don't consider the Vice-Chair to be a "Chair in Waiting", the we can just let the Chair pick. That seems like the best way to get someone who can help out with a style that matches the Chair.
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.
I don't like having a requirement for the Vice-Chair (or Chair) to be a current or former RIPE working group chair. Certainly being a working group chair is valuable experience for the role, but I don't think a necessary requirement. Cheers, -- Shane