-----Original Message----- From: ripe-chair-discuss <ripe-chair-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of Jim Reid Sent: Monday 16 July 2018 17:34 To: Lars-Johan Liman <liman@netnod.se> Cc: RIPE Chair Discussion List <ripe-chair-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [ripe-chair-discuss] Some observations and opinions.
On 16 Jul 2018, at 17:02, Lars-Johan Liman <liman@netnod.se> wrote:
However, I think there are few areas where I think we need to make sure that there is consensus in the wider community.
I agree. The current proposal is very good and there's lots I like. Congrats to Anna and everyone else who helped put this together.
+1
There's one omission though. I'd like the decision of the WG Chairs Collective (WGCC) to get endorsed by the RIPE Community. ie
NomCom recommends WGCC selects Community approves
This would give us a reasonable set of checks and balances that allows the community to retain overall control without getting bogged down in the implementation detail of the selection machinery.
I think, as there was on the only hand over, there must be acclamation from the community. The Plenary session of a RIPE meeting seems like the obvious place for this, given easy remote participation is possible. However... I want to make a comment about the removal. Yes, the AA-WG did remove a Co-Chair, but it was such a complicated and torturous process that it moved us towards putting procedures in place for same. I believe, as the person on stage at the time, I can speak with some authority about how unpleasant it was and how I would prefer to never do it again. Now, I do not believe that we need a complicated procedure here, but I think I would like to see something like: "If the Chair has lost the faith and trust of the community, then the community/RIPE meeting Plenary/something similar can ask them to step down. The Vice-Chair would then assume the Chairs duties while a new selection procedure takes place." I think it is good governance to write this down, and it chimes with what has been described here, without getting into any procedural weeds. Thanks, Brian