+1 with Nurani's and Nick's comments. I share similar concerns.

I have even more concerns that NOMCOM only hands-over a shortlist to the WG Chairs Collective, who ultimately selects the Chair.

If we were after just checking boxes and being pragmatic, we could just leave the whole thing to WG Chairs Collective.

I personally prefer to come up with a transparent and actually an accountable process for the RIPE Community, while it can also be pragmatic.

To explain my concerns further; RIPE WG Chair Selection process is not a uniform one and every group is left to decide on their selection process. This was largely because WGs or their Chairs at the time could not agree on an uniform process across RIPE.

So now we have a WG Chairs Collective, selected through processes with words "may", "can" etc, some WGs have two people in this Collective, some three, etc etc... Some WGs selection process is not even published yet, even if they exist and can be seen accountable, they lack transperancy (as of today). In principle this may lead to no change or to a very limited change in that Collective for the unforeseeable future. I felt uncomfortable with this but lived with it at the time because in fact WG Chairs' remit is and should be mostly about running their WG effectively and it was considered to be already a big step in the right direction at the time.

But now, this is different. I do not feel comfortable simply using this existing structure to select another group, NOMCOM, have this NOMCOM just come up with a short-list of names and then basically have the WG Chairs Collective select the name to be the RIPE Chair themselves eventually. It is circular, opaque and makes the WG Chairs Collective some sort of general “RIPE community elders” to whom we give all the decision powers in the community, in Nurani's words.

There are different ways of dealing with this for a better outcome while following a better process too. Some are and could be even further improved:

- We could consider Carlos' suggestion: WGs (not just their Chairs) select a representative to the NOMCOM. So we end up with a NOMCOM that is actually selected by portions of the Community directly, not via WG Chairs Collective. This is how it is done in some other Communities. Then we 1 or N rep but equally from each WG and WG Communities in fact select their rep directly, not their WG Chair(s) of the time.

- We could also consider NOMCOM's decision to be the ultimate decision, so their role will be to select the RIPE Chair, full stop. Not just to hand-over a shot-list to the WG Chairs Collective. This is how it is done in some other Communities too.

Kind regards

Filiz Yilmaz

On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 9:42 AM Nurani Nimpuno <nurani@nimblebits.net> wrote:

> On 9 Oct 2018, at 01:09, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote:
>
> Jim Reid wrote on 08/10/2018 23:59:
>> There is*nothing* in the current proposal which says this. Now
>> perhaps that language isn't clear enough. But it looks clear to me.
>
> yes, but that isn't what I meant. Consider the following:
>
> 1. WGCC appoints nomcom
> 2. A WG chair throws hat into RIPE Chair ring
> 3. Nomcom, appointed by WGCC, selects that WG chair as candidate
> 4. WGCC selects that WG chair as RIPE chair-to-be
> 5. RIPE Community approves the selection
>
> Are you ok with this as an outcome of the process? I'm not.

I share this concern. This does not sound like a particularly sound process.

Nomcom
I also share some of the concerns raised by others on the list about the concept of simply adding tasks and responsibilities to the WG chairs and turn them into a Nomcom appointment group.

I understand that it on the surface of things may seem simple and straightforward to use the existing structures we have by just using the WG chairs for this. But I think it is a wrong assumption to make to think that this is better or more straightforward and transparent than a separate, proper Nomcom mechanism.

As others have pointed out, when we select our WG chairs, we do so for their competence and ability to chair a particular WG, not because we elect them as some sort of general “RIPE community elders” to whom we give all the deciding powers in the community in all sorts of different areas. This concept worries me greatly.

I believe having a proper Nomcom mechanism is more in the spirit of the bottom-up and transparent nature of this community.

Vice chair
As for the rest of the proposal, I think the concept of a vice chair is a sound one, but would like there to be a clear description of the role of the vice chair. I also believe this role should be rather limited.

Tenure
- Five-year term
I believe that a five-year term is very long. I support Liman’s very valid comments that in that it may dramatically limit the pool of potential candidates, and that five years is a very long time to replace a poorly performing chair.

- Two-term limit
I strongly support a two-term limit.

Cheers,

Nurani

>
> Nick
>