RIPE Chair Selection Process
Dear colleagues, Based on community input, including a plenary session at RIPE 76 and a discussion on this mailing list, we put together a final version of the RIPE Chair selection process: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/mirjam/ripe-chair-selection-process This will be presented during the plenary at RIPE 77 with the aim to reach consensus on the process. Kind regards, Mirjam Kühne RIPE NCC
Mirjam Kuehne wrote on 02/10/2018 10:27:
Based on community input, including a plenary session at RIPE 76 and a discussion on this mailing list, we put together a final version of the RIPE Chair selection process:
https://labs.ripe.net/Members/mirjam/ripe-chair-selection-process
This will be presented during the plenary at RIPE 77 with the aim to reach consensus on the process.
This looks mostly fine, with the exception of the involvement of the WG Chairs Collective in the NomCom appointment process. There is long running disquiet in the RIPE community about the WG Chairs Collective as an institution. There are other similar organisation structures on the internet who have nomcom mechanisms which work well, which the RIPE community could use. As a separate consideration, there is no particular reason to use the WG Chairs Collective for this purpose. In the interests of bottom-up process and transparency, it would be better to invest the nomcom mechanism in something else. I'm not able to support the current proposal, due to this point. Nick
how did we come to this decision; the nomcom being the wg chair retirement home? brandy and cigars?
This looks mostly fine, with the exception of the involvement of the WG Chairs Collective in the NomCom appointment process.
aside from process issues which you point out, this would remove the chairs from candidacy, maybe not the wisest of moves, as a few of them actually *do* things.
There are other similar organisation structures on the internet who have nomcom mechanisms which work well, which the RIPE community could use.
the ietf's semi-randomiezed process comes to mind; though it is a bit complex. but at least it is not an old girls'/boys' club.
I'm not able to support the current proposal
nor am i. randy
On 7 Oct 2018, at 21:08, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
how did we come to this decision; the nomcom being the wg chair retirement home? brandy and cigars?
Damn, missed those, again (well, if someone wants my share of the hypothetical cigar I will gladly pass it on) ;)
This looks mostly fine, with the exception of the involvement of the WG Chairs Collective in the NomCom appointment process.
aside from process issues which you point out, this would remove the chairs from candidacy, maybe not the wisest of moves, as a few of them actually *do* things.
Actually, the way I understood it was the wg charts “collective” would admin the process of putting together the nomcom (a process that is itself undefined at this time and could be, as I seem to recall some discussion, similar to the random selection of the IETF). I didn’t sign up anywhere to be the nomcom because a self-appointed nomcom… defeats the purpose of an open nomcom.
There are other similar organisation structures on the internet who have nomcom mechanisms which work well, which the RIPE community could use.
the ietf's semi-randomiezed process comes to mind; though it is a bit complex. but at least it is not an old girls'/boys' club.
Hmmm…, ballot stuffing of the pool from which members are picked may or may not have happened there, possibly unbalancing the process somewhat. Perfection is hard. I have no better system to offer though, just tuning of the process, if that.
I'm not able to support the current proposal
nor am i.
randy
On 08/10/2018 13:50, Joao Damas wrote:
Actually, the way I understood it was the wg charts “collective” would admin the process of putting together the nomcom (a process that is itself undefined at this time and could be, as I seem to recall some discussion, similar to the random selection of the IETF).
That's a material distinction. Checking the text, it says "The RIPE Working Group Chair collective will be responsible for forming a Nominations Committee (NomCom)." which is consistent with Joao's interpretation, but arguably ambiguous and was in fact misunderstood by at least two people here. Perhaps a small edit, to say, "The RIPE Working Group Chair collective will be responsible for selecting and convening a Nominations Committee (NomCom)." would clarify what they actually need to do? -- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/ London Internet Exchange Ltd Monument Place, 24 Monument Street London EC3R 8AJ Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
On Mon, Oct 8, 2018, 14:57 Malcolm Hutty <malcolm@linx.net> wrote:
On 08/10/2018 13:50, Joao Damas wrote:
Actually, the way I understood it was the wg charts “collective” would admin the process of putting together the nomcom (a process that is itself undefined at this time and could be, as I seem to recall some discussion, similar to the random selection of the IETF).
That's a material distinction.
Checking the text, it says "The RIPE Working Group Chair collective will be responsible for forming a Nominations Committee (NomCom)."
which is consistent with Joao's interpretation, but arguably ambiguous and was in fact misunderstood by at least two people here.
Perhaps a small edit, to say,
"The RIPE Working Group Chair collective will be responsible for selecting and convening a Nominations Committee (NomCom)."
would clarify what they actually need to do?
Agree, thats a better text. Quick check... Are there a definition of "The RIPE Working Group Chair collective" or is it fully understood by everyone?
On 8 Oct 2018, at 16:05, Roger Jørgensen <rogerj@gmail.com <mailto:rogerj@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Mon, Oct 8, 2018, 14:57 Malcolm Hutty <malcolm@linx.net <mailto:malcolm@linx.net>> wrote: On 08/10/2018 13:50, Joao Damas wrote:
Actually, the way I understood it was the wg charts “collective” would admin the process of putting together the nomcom (a process that is itself undefined at this time and could be, as I seem to recall some discussion, similar to the random selection of the IETF).
That's a material distinction.
Checking the text, it says "The RIPE Working Group Chair collective will be responsible for forming a Nominations Committee (NomCom)."
which is consistent with Joao's interpretation, but arguably ambiguous and was in fact misunderstood by at least two people here.
Perhaps a small edit, to say,
"The RIPE Working Group Chair collective will be responsible for selecting and convening a Nominations Committee (NomCom)."
would clarify what they actually need to do?
Agree, thats a better text.
Also agree.
Quick check... Are there a definition of "The RIPE Working Group Chair collective" or is it fully understood by everyone?
Well, I use it to mean “the set of people who are RIPE working chair-people at that point in time”. I also take the use of “Collective” here as a bit of tongue-in-cheek term by the native English speakers amongst us who, as tradition mandates, question and slightly slight every and any sort of structure. Correct me if I am wrong. Joao
On Sun, Oct 07, 2018 at 04:32:43PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:
This will be presented during the plenary at RIPE 77 with the aim to reach consensus on the process.
This looks mostly fine, with the exception of the involvement of the WG Chairs Collective in the NomCom appointment process.
I share this concern, both regarding the convener function as well as the final appointig function. The engineering reason is that technically the RIPE chair presides the "collective" and thus would have an essential role in the process.
There is long running disquiet in the RIPE community about the WG Chairs Collective as an institution.
This is probably a bold statement, but in spite of (or maybe because of) having been in that place in the almost distant past, I tend to share that sentiment.
In the interests of bottom-up process and transparency, it would be better to invest the nomcom mechanism in something else.
By the way, I'd consider overloading the PC with any function quite equally undesirable. In addition, the NomCom to be "representative of the RIPE community" raises concerns although that might be a wording issue. -Peter
On 8 Oct 2018, at 17:21, Peter Koch <pk@DENIC.DE> wrote:
I share this concern, both regarding the convener function as well as the final appointig function.
Peter, you are mistaken. The final appointing function rests with the RIPE community, not the proposed Nomcom. Or the WGCC. The document explicitly says this: "The RIPE community will endorse the candidate put forward by the WG Chair collective."
The engineering reason is that technically the RIPE chair presides the "collective" and thus would have an essential role in the process.
That’s a non sequitur. Besides, it's easily solved: the RIPE Chair recuses themself from any discussion about the composition of the Nomcom and does not get involved in its working methods or its recommendations. Which is an obvious no-brainer. Or should be. If we can’t trust our Dear Leader to do the Right Thing in this situation, we have much more serious problems to resolve. There seemed to be a consensus emerging around something I posted a while back:
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.
It would be unfortunate if these general principles are lost. More so if they get buried under an open-ended discussion about process that will outlast the heat death of the universe. I urge those who express unhappiness with the current proposal to be constructive. Please supply text. ie A suggestion of a better procedure. Just objecting without offering an alternative or improvements is not helpful.
"The RIPE community will endorse the candidate put forward by the WG Chair collective."
oh, you mean the collective that appoints the nomcom? you can see where this appears a bit loose and sloppy randy
On 8 Oct 2018, at 17:50, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
"The RIPE community will endorse the candidate put forward by the WG Chair collective."
oh, you mean the collective that appoints the nomcom?
you can see where this appears a bit loose and sloppy
No Randy, I don’t. It looks clear enough to me. Though perhaps I’ve wasted more time on this than you have. No matter. If you think the current proposal needs improvement, kindly provide text which does that. Just saying it "appears a bit loose and sloppy” doesn’t help anyone get rid of that apparent looseness or sloppiness.
"The RIPE community will endorse the candidate put forward by the WG Chair collective." oh, you mean the collective that appoints the nomcom? you can see where this appears a bit loose and sloppy
No Randy, I don’t.
then let me try again. is the candidate put forward by the wg chair collective or by a nomcom. i keep hearing stereo. randy
On 8 Oct 2018, at 17:57, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
"The RIPE community will endorse the candidate put forward by the WG Chair collective." oh, you mean the collective that appoints the nomcom? you can see where this appears a bit loose and sloppy
No Randy, I don’t.
then let me try again.
is the candidate put forward by the wg chair collective or by a nomcom. i keep hearing stereo.
How hard can it be? The selection process After a shortlist of potential candidates has been identified, the NomCom will hand it over to the WG Chair collective. The WG Chair collective will actively gather feedback from the RIPE community about each candidate. Based on this feedback, the WG Chair collective will select the best candidate for the job. The RIPE community will endorse the candidate put forward by the WG Chair collective. In short, the Nomcom comes up with a short list. The WGCC chooses someone from that list (or tells the Nomcom to come up with a better list). The WGCC choice goes to the RIPE Community for final approval.
The WG Chair collective will actively gather feedback from the RIPE community about each candidate. Based on this feedback, the WG Chair collective will select the best candidate for the job. and here lies the problem. Or more accurately, an entanglement of
Jim Reid wrote on 08/10/2018 18:02: problems, none of which can be fully separated from any other. The WGCC selects the nomcom, the nomcom selects the candidates and the WGCC selects the winner, meaning that the WGCC has effectively full selection control over the entire process. A final acclamation of the new chair-to-be by the RIPE community is then expected to impart the seal of bottom-up process to all this. Or not. It doesn't help - as Randy noted - that the WGCC's involvement stops any active WG chair from putting their name into the hat because there are some very fine people acting as WG chairs at the moment and it seems both unfortunate and unnecessary to exclude them by dint of their commitment to other parts of the RIPE community. We may wish to put a line into the RIPE chair description to say that that person cannot be a WG Chair, but categorically excluding all WG chairs from the RIPE Chair process will either lead to an impoverishment of candidates or else a rush to resign WG Chair status in order to throw one's hat into the ring. Neither of these things is necessary or sensible. Nor does it help the transparency problem that it is not possible to be part of either the nomcom control mechanism or the Chair selection process unless you also happen to be a WG chair. What if someone of good standing wants to be able on the panel which selects the final candidate, but cannot commit to the ongoing requirements of being a WG chair? It is hard to reconcile this with bottom-up thinking. Regarding the WGCC, it's a good thing that after 20-odd years of prodding, the collective started publishing agendas and minutes in 2014, and finally accepted that their constituents - the WG chairs themselves - needed to be regularly refreshed. This was a genuine and much needed improvement in how the collective operated - although it was surprising how and why it operated the way it did for so long. Regular RIPE community members are still not welcome to attend WGCC convenings and I still have no idea what the WGCC remit includes or what limits it has. Listening from the other side of the door, it seems to make some decisions and some recommendations, but all the WGCC people I've ever talked to about it throw their hands up in the air and proclaim its uselessness and futility at decision making because - they claim - there are just too many voices shouting and it's impossible to get anything done. Maybe this is true, but who knows? Maybe too this could be fixed, but this would raise the question of whether the fixes were being implemented in order to turn the collective into a suitable body for handling the RIPE Chair selection process, instead of being implemented than in order to fix problems with the WGCC that needed to be fixed anyway, and probably needed to be fixed many years ago. Which brings us back to question of suitability for purpose: are the RIPE Community's interests going to be best served by a collective with poorly defined processes which has only acted to reform itself when forced to do so, or would it be better if we had a different process for handling the chair selection process? You could argue that the WGCC is a body of people which would probably return a reasonable selection result, and I might even agree with this to some extent: there are some very fine people in the collective. But it is important to draw a distinction between the collective as a single unit and the people who make up the collective unit. Collective bodies - "committees", if you like - often come out with results which don't necessarily match well with the sum of wisdom of their individual members. I think we owe it to the RIPE community to come up with a process which is bottom-up, as well as looking as if it's bottom-up. Right now, we're not there on either point. Nick
Hi, That was a bit long, i hope i didn't miss anything :-) 1- I don't have any issue with a WG Chair stepping down to possibly become the RIPE Chair (or Vice-Chair, btw) 2- What if the NomCom "seats" could be defined by finding one representative from each WG? i.e. the NomCom candidates present themselves at the WG. 1 person per WG is appointed. The same person shouldn't (or couldn't?) run in more than one WG. 3- Should the "NomCom collective" have some sort of geographic diversity? Best Regards, Carlos On Mon, 8 Oct 2018, Nick Hilliard wrote:
Jim Reid wrote on 08/10/2018 18:02:
The WG Chair collective will actively gather feedback from the RIPE community about each candidate. Based on this feedback, the WG Chair collective will select the best candidate for the job. and here lies the problem. Or more accurately, an entanglement of problems, none of which can be fully separated from any other.
The WGCC selects the nomcom, the nomcom selects the candidates and the WGCC selects the winner, meaning that the WGCC has effectively full selection control over the entire process. A final acclamation of the new chair-to-be by the RIPE community is then expected to impart the seal of bottom-up process to all this. Or not.
It doesn't help - as Randy noted - that the WGCC's involvement stops any active WG chair from putting their name into the hat because there are some very fine people acting as WG chairs at the moment and it seems both unfortunate and unnecessary to exclude them by dint of their commitment to other parts of the RIPE community.
We may wish to put a line into the RIPE chair description to say that that person cannot be a WG Chair, but categorically excluding all WG chairs from the RIPE Chair process will either lead to an impoverishment of candidates or else a rush to resign WG Chair status in order to throw one's hat into the ring. Neither of these things is necessary or sensible.
Nor does it help the transparency problem that it is not possible to be part of either the nomcom control mechanism or the Chair selection process unless you also happen to be a WG chair. What if someone of good standing wants to be able on the panel which selects the final candidate, but cannot commit to the ongoing requirements of being a WG chair? It is hard to reconcile this with bottom-up thinking.
Regarding the WGCC, it's a good thing that after 20-odd years of prodding, the collective started publishing agendas and minutes in 2014, and finally accepted that their constituents - the WG chairs themselves - needed to be regularly refreshed. This was a genuine and much needed improvement in how the collective operated - although it was surprising how and why it operated the way it did for so long.
Regular RIPE community members are still not welcome to attend WGCC convenings and I still have no idea what the WGCC remit includes or what limits it has. Listening from the other side of the door, it seems to make some decisions and some recommendations, but all the WGCC people I've ever talked to about it throw their hands up in the air and proclaim its uselessness and futility at decision making because - they claim - there are just too many voices shouting and it's impossible to get anything done. Maybe this is true, but who knows?
Maybe too this could be fixed, but this would raise the question of whether the fixes were being implemented in order to turn the collective into a suitable body for handling the RIPE Chair selection process, instead of being implemented than in order to fix problems with the WGCC that needed to be fixed anyway, and probably needed to be fixed many years ago. Which brings us back to question of suitability for purpose: are the RIPE Community's interests going to be best served by a collective with poorly defined processes which has only acted to reform itself when forced to do so, or would it be better if we had a different process for handling the chair selection process?
You could argue that the WGCC is a body of people which would probably return a reasonable selection result, and I might even agree with this to some extent: there are some very fine people in the collective. But it is important to draw a distinction between the collective as a single unit and the people who make up the collective unit. Collective bodies - "committees", if you like - often come out with results which don't necessarily match well with the sum of wisdom of their individual members.
I think we owe it to the RIPE community to come up with a process which is bottom-up, as well as looking as if it's bottom-up. Right now, we're not there on either point.
Nick
I think we owe it to the RIPE community to come up with a process which is bottom-up, as well as looking as if it's bottom-up. Right now, we're not there on either point.
maybe if we increase to three self-selecting committees each validating eachother it will look more open and bottom up. how about four? when things are opaque, closed, circular, ... it is as if the threat model is the community. sorry for snark; long day, half meetings, and it is not over three things make the ietf nomcom process (see rfcs 3777 and 3797) feel open and bottom up. o volunteers are randomly selected o the pool is wide with a minimal (and some want to loosen further) barrier to entry o the nomination and selection process is open and transparent (except when it gets personal) randy
On 8 Oct 2018, at 22:44, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote:
It doesn't help - as Randy noted - that the WGCC's involvement stops any active WG chair from putting their name into the hat
There is *nothing* in the current proposal which says this. Now perhaps that language isn't clear enough. But it looks clear to me. I quote: "There are no constraints on the size and composition of the NomCom.” and "the WG Chair collective will select the best candidate for the job”. The current proposal says nothing either way about whether a WG Chair can or cannot be that best candidate.
We may wish to put a line into the RIPE chair description to say that that person cannot be a WG Chair, but categorically excluding all WG chairs from the RIPE Chair process will either lead to an impoverishment of candidates or else a rush to resign WG Chair status in order to throw one's hat into the ring. Neither of these things is necessary or sensible.
And neither of these things is being suggested. As I said earlier, if the wording lacks clarity -- and judging by your comments Nick it is defective because it appears to be confusing/misleading for some -- please suggest replacement clarifying text. There’s *nothing* in the text that says a WG Chair is excluded from consideration for the RIPE Chair. And there’s nothing saying only a WG Chair could be considered either. I think both of these omissions is intentional. Perhaps the text needs to be made more explicit.
Nor does it help the transparency problem that it is not possible to be part of either the nomcom control mechanism or the Chair selection process unless you also happen to be a WG chair.
The current proposal doesn’t say that either.
What if someone of good standing wants to be able on the panel which selects the final candidate, but cannot commit to the ongoing requirements of being a WG chair?
They can serve on the Nomcom and go back to their dayjob once the Nomcom has done what it was tasked with doing. No WG Chairs need to be introduced, replaced or removed to make that happen. Unless the selection process says something is explicitly forbidden, I would hope we can work on the understanding that anything is permitted. Within reason of course. Maybe some text along these lines needs to be added somewhere? FWIW here’s my understanding of the current proposal: 0) Anyone can become RIPE Chair. 1) The Nomcom and WGCC are two distinct entities each with its own discrete membership. Though there might be people who serve on both if the community decides that's wise or desirable. 2) Anyone can serve on the Nomcom, modulo the usual common sense provisos about conflicts of interest and reasonable community standing. They DO NOT have to be a WG Chair. Or be appointed as a WG Chair in order to serve on the Nomcom. [IMO more than one or two WG Chairs on the Nomcom would be unwelcome because a much broader base is needed.] 3) A WG Chair or two *might* serve on the Nomcom. As could someone from the PC. Or perhaps someone from the NCC. Whatever. Presumably they’d be on the Nomcom not because they were a WG Chair (say), but because they had reasonable community standing, no conflicts of interest and their participation helped make the Nomcom’s composition more representative of the RIPE Community. 4) The WGCC would apply some sort of sanity check on those volunteering to be on the Nomcom - ie taking account of possible conflicts of interest and reasonable community standing concerns again. And for bonus points (handwave, handwave) try to ensure the Nomcom reasonably reflected the diversity of the RIPE community. That role for the WGCC may also be necessary if the Nomcom gets chosen at random from a pool of volunteers. 5) The Nomcom can pick whoever they want for the shortlist, irrespective of whatever hats those choices might or might not be wearing. The Nomcom’s remit is simple and obvious: find the best possible candidates for the role.
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. Nick
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
A process admin role. I would see this as a random selection process, not a personal selection process, otherwise we can get nasty loops. Given this should be purely an admin process of setting up the nomcom, following an established procedure, it could be done by a sub-set, at which point anyone considering throwing their name into the hat better not be part of the sub-set.
2. A WG chair throws hat into RIPE Chair ring
If that happens, at this points that WG chair would have to either step down or recuse her/himself from any further discussion on the process, even in read-only mode.
3. Nomcom, appointed by WGCC, selects that WG chair as candidate 4. WGCC selects that WG chair as RIPE chair-to-be
Two important bits here. First the fact that you are pointing out there is a loop. Hopefully the changes above would clear that. Second, the word “that”, meaning one, the nomcom would need to choose one person not a pool, to be sanity checked (a check on process) then passed on to the RIPE plenary.
unity approves the selection
Are you ok with this as an outcome of the process? I'm not.
Would the changes I outline above make sense to you? Joao
On 9 Oct 2018, at 08:37, Joao Damas <joao@bondis.org> wrote:
Would the changes I outline above make sense to you?
They work for me. Thanks Joao.
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
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: <snip> 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.
I've tried to formulate my concern, but it is really down to the connection between Nomcom and WGCC, I don't like it, and I read that other also share this concern. Is that correct? Would it work if we let PC appoint NomCom? There are probably problems with this that I don't see. -- Roger Jorgensen rogerj@gmail.com / roger@jorgensen.no
On 9 Oct 2018, at 08:57, Roger Jørgensen <rogerj@gmail.com> wrote:
Would it work if we let PC appoint NomCom? There are probably problems with this that I don't see.
No. The same perceived problems arise with whatever group appoints the Nomcom. Giving responsibility for the Nomcom to the PC would be even worse because the PC has no role in RIPE policy making. It should stay that way. Adding that role would mean rechartering the PC. Most PC members are appointed by votes. When there’s no control over who gets to vote or how often. RIPE makes important decisions by consensus, not votes. Other members of the PC are not appointed by the community, for instance the stuckee from the local host.
On 09/10/2018, 09:24, "ripe-chair-discuss on behalf of Jim Reid" <ripe-chair-discuss-bounces@ripe.net on behalf of jim@rfc1035.com> wrote: >> On 9 Oct 2018, at 08:57, Roger Jørgensen <rogerj@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Would it work if we let PC appoint NomCom? There are probably problems >> with this that I don't see.
No. The same perceived problems arise with whatever group appoints the Nomcom.
Giving responsibility for the Nomcom to the PC would be even worse because the PC has no role in RIPE policy making. It should stay that way. Adding that role would mean rechartering the PC.
Most PC members are appointed by votes. When there’s no control over who gets to vote or how often. RIPE makes important decisions by consensus, not votes. Other members of the PC are not appointed by the community, for instance the stuckee from the local host.
I have been nodding along with a lot of what Jim has been saying here, but most vigorously at this. As one of the few people who sits on both the WG Chairs Collective and the PC (and so probably biased in all sorts of directions and unsure of whether I'm a fine person or not __ ) I can sincerely say that if the WGCC isn't right to build the NomCom, the PC definitely isn't. It would radically change the nature/purpose of the group and not, I think, for the better. Brian Brian Nisbet Network Operations Manager HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland +35316609040 brian.nisbet@heanet.ie www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270
On 9 Oct 2018, at 17:02, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
Would it work if we let PC appoint NomCom? There are probably problems with this that I don't see. No. The same perceived problems arise with whatever group appoints the Nomcom.
so don't *appoint* the nomcom at all. random selection. but i already said that.
I think the problem with a random selection is just that, it’s random, would you really want someone who has never been involved with the RIPE community picking the potential next RIPE chair? I’m a bit late to this and apologies for that, but having read and agree with a lot of the discussion I would like to make a suggestion: The NomCom is selected randomly by whatever ‘name in the hat’ process, however to volunteer to be on the NomCom you must have been active in the RIPE community over the last x years by either attending y RIPE meetings or being active on a RIPE mailing list (or some defined criteria). The NomCom review and select the candidate who is presented to the community to endorse or reject. This keeps the process lightweight, open and removes the wgcc involvement, unless they want to put their name in the hat of course. Thoughts? Regards, Bijal
randy
On 11 Oct 2018, at 14:24, Bijal Sanghani <bijal@euro-ix.net> wrote:
I’m a bit late to this and apologies for that, but having read and agree with a lot of the discussion I would like to make a suggestion:
The NomCom is selected randomly by whatever ‘name in the hat’ process, however to volunteer to be on the NomCom you must have been active in the RIPE community over the last x years by either attending y RIPE meetings or being active on a RIPE mailing list (or some defined criteria).
The NomCom review and select the candidate who is presented to the community to endorse or reject.
This keeps the process lightweight, open and removes the wgcc involvement, unless they want to put their name in the hat of course.
I like this Bijal! A lot. Removing the WGCC would address quite a few of the concerns that have been raised. And get rid of possibly superfluous moving parts. Procedures generally work better when there are fewer actors and fewer steps. So this is all good IMO. The criterion of participating in X meetings over Y years -- for some definition of X and Y -- might well be good enough to ensure the Nomcom gets people who understand RIPE well. It should also do away with the notion of the WGCC performing some sort of sanity checking on the Nomcom membership (or more): something else that has been flagged as a potential problem. The conflict of interest worries would be eliminated too. If someone serves on the Nomcom, they can’t be considered for RIPE Chair. Simple. IIUC your suggestion is pretty much how the IETF’s nomcom works. Perhaps we just adopt/tweak that and save ourselves from reinventing the wheel?
On 11/10/18 14:24, Bijal Sanghani wrote:
On 9 Oct 2018, at 17:02, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
Would it work if we let PC appoint NomCom? There are probably problems with this that I don't see. No. The same perceived problems arise with whatever group appoints the Nomcom.
so don't *appoint* the nomcom at all. random selection. but i already said that.
I think the problem with a random selection is just that, it’s random, would you really want someone who has never been involved with the RIPE community picking the potential next RIPE chair?
I’m a bit late to this and apologies for that, but having read and agree with a lot of the discussion I would like to make a suggestion:
The NomCom is selected randomly by whatever ‘name in the hat’ process, however to volunteer to be on the NomCom you must have been active in the RIPE community over the last x years by either attending y RIPE meetings or being active on a RIPE mailing list (or some defined criteria).
The NomCom review and select the candidate who is presented to the community to endorse or reject.
This keeps the process lightweight, open and removes the wgcc involvement, unless they want to put their name in the hat of course.
Brilliant... fewer moving parts and gets rid of the WGCC involvement in the process. I like this Nigel
Would it work if we let PC appoint NomCom? There are probably problems with this that I don't see. No. The same perceived problems arise with whatever group appoints the Nomcom.
so don't *appoint* the nomcom at all. random selection. but i already said that.
I think the problem with a random selection is just that, it’s random, would you really want someone who has never been involved with the RIPE community picking the potential next RIPE chair?
the ietf has the same problem. which is why it is random selection from a QUALIFIED pool of volunteers. in the ietf's case, the sole qualification is attended N out of the last M meetings. where N and M are in one of the RFC citations i gave. it is somewhat odd that meeting attendance is the criterion in a community which claims that the mailing lists are the place where work is done. and, of course, this is re-discussed. it is all spelled out in horrid detail in the rfc cites i gave back in this thread. hard as it is to believe, the ietf is even more obsessed about documenting corner cases than the ripe wannabe technical lawyers. randy
On 11 Oct 2018, at 15:40, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
it is somewhat odd that meeting attendance is the criterion in a community which claims that the mailing lists are the place where work is done. and, of course, this is re-discussed.
Yes, there is a contradiction there. Sort of. However for RIPE, we're appointing a Chair whose responsibilities largely focus around RIPE meetings, not the work or policy-making that supposedly gets done on RIPE's mailing lists. Drawing from the people who regularly participate in RIPE meetings for both the Nomcom and Chair seems the most sensible choice to me.
it is somewhat odd that meeting attendance is the criterion in a community which claims that the mailing lists are the place where work is done. and, of course, this is re-discussed.
Yes, there is a contradiction there. Sort of. However for RIPE, we're appointing a Chair whose responsibilities largely focus around RIPE meetings, not the work or policy-making that supposedly gets done on RIPE's mailing lists. Drawing from the people who regularly participate in RIPE meetings for both the Nomcom and Chair seems the most sensible choice to me.
i was merely pointing out yet another ietf procedural oddity. i am not against the ripe community using N out of M meetings as the principal qualifier for a nomcom pool. i suspect there might be some discussion of *which* meetings from folk distant from the amsterdam/rome/lisbon axis. i am in less of a position to take sides in that one than a scot is. :) randy
On 11 Oct 2018, at 15:59, Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> wrote:
On 11 Oct 2018, at 15:40, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
it is somewhat odd that meeting attendance is the criterion in a community which claims that the mailing lists are the place where work is done. and, of course, this is re-discussed.
Yes, there is a contradiction there. Sort of. However for RIPE, we're appointing a Chair whose responsibilities largely focus around RIPE meetings, not the work or policy-making that supposedly gets done on RIPE's mailing lists. Drawing from the people who regularly participate in RIPE meetings for both the Nomcom and Chair seems the most sensible choice to me.
I don’t think we should forget those who are active in the community that can’t attend the RIPE meetings for whatever reason, by active I mean via the mailing lists or remote meeting participation. So I think the criteria should be to have been active in the RIPE community over the last x years by attending at least y RIPE meetings OR by being active on a RIPE mailing list in the last x years. Regards, Bijal (where x and y could possibly = three) :)
it is somewhat odd that meeting attendance is the criterion in a community which claims that the mailing lists are the place where work is done. and, of course, this is re-discussed.
Yes, there is a contradiction there. Sort of. However for RIPE, we're appointing a Chair whose responsibilities largely focus around RIPE meetings, not the work or policy-making that supposedly gets done on RIPE's mailing lists. Drawing from the people who regularly participate in RIPE meetings for both the Nomcom and Chair seems the most sensible choice to me.
I don’t think we should forget those who are active in the community that can’t attend the RIPE meetings for whatever reason, by active I mean via the mailing lists or remote meeting participation.
So I think the criteria should be to have been active in the RIPE community over the last x years by attending at least y RIPE meetings OR by being active on a RIPE mailing list in the last x years.
i am not sure i see a major clue level difference between attendees and mailing list participants. but i am a poor judge as i am good at avoiding. but i take jim's point that the chair is the *meeting* chair. rob used to do a fair bit of external relations; not sure about hph, and not sure what is really needed. randy
I like that suggestion:) On Thu, Oct 11, 2018, 15:24 Bijal Sanghani <bijal@euro-ix.net> wrote:
On 9 Oct 2018, at 17:02, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
Would it work if we let PC appoint NomCom? There are probably problems with this that I don't see. No. The same perceived problems arise with whatever group appoints the Nomcom.
so don't *appoint* the nomcom at all. random selection. but i already said that.
I think the problem with a random selection is just that, it’s random, would you really want someone who has never been involved with the RIPE community picking the potential next RIPE chair?
I’m a bit late to this and apologies for that, but having read and agree with a lot of the discussion I would like to make a suggestion:
The NomCom is selected randomly by whatever ‘name in the hat’ process, however to volunteer to be on the NomCom you must have been active in the RIPE community over the last x years by either attending y RIPE meetings or being active on a RIPE mailing list (or some defined criteria).
The NomCom review and select the candidate who is presented to the community to endorse or reject.
This keeps the process lightweight, open and removes the wgcc involvement, unless they want to put their name in the hat of course.
Thoughts?
Regards, Bijal
randy
Hi Bijal and all,
On 11 Oct 2018, at 15:24, Bijal Sanghani <bijal@euro-ix.net> wrote:
<snip>
I’m a bit late to this and apologies for that, but having read and agree with a lot of the discussion I would like to make a suggestion:
The NomCom is selected randomly by whatever ‘name in the hat’ process, however to volunteer to be on the NomCom you must have been active in the RIPE community over the last x years by either attending y RIPE meetings or being active on a RIPE mailing list (or some defined criteria).
The NomCom review and select the candidate who is presented to the community to endorse or reject.
This keeps the process lightweight, open and removes the wgcc involvement, unless they want to put their name in the hat of course.
Thoughts?
I have thought a lot about it since you posted it. And I really like the general spirit of this. The precise criteria can be discussed and fine tuned, of course. But the concept of selecting active community members for the NomCom is one that appeals greatly to me. Your proposal means that we can avoid simply expanding the job description of people already appointed to other positions. It distributes the responsibilities throughout the community which is generally a healthy thing IMO, and it is also in line with the spirit of inclusiveness, whilst also keeping the process lightweight. I like the direction this discussion is going! Thanks, Nurani
Regards, Bijal
randy
At the risk of yet another “me too”...
The NomCom is selected randomly by whatever ‘name in the hat’ process, however to volunteer to be on the NomCom you must have been active in the RIPE community over the last x years by either attending y RIPE meetings or being active on a RIPE mailing list (or some defined criteria).
The NomCom review and select the candidate who is presented to the community to endorse or reject.
...
Your proposal means that we can avoid simply expanding the job description of people already appointed to other positions. It distributes the responsibilities throughout the community which is generally a healthy thing IMO, and it is also in line with the spirit of inclusiveness, whilst also keeping the process lightweight.
When a NomCom was suggested, I just assumed a method similar to this would be used for their selection, but that was naive on my part, and it needs to be spelled out in this way. Thank you for doing that. I did wonder whether if there was a need for yet another committee, but I don’t think this sits well with any existing body, so a NomCom with approval by the plenary/community sounds right to me. Cheers, Rob Jisc is a registered charity (number 1149740) and a company limited by guarantee which is registered in England under Company No. 5747339, VAT No. GB 197 0632 86. Jisc’s registered office is: One Castlepark, Tower Hill, Bristol, BS2 0JA. T 0203 697 5800. Jisc Services Limited is a wholly owned Jisc subsidiary and a company limited by guarantee which is registered in England under company number 2881024, VAT number GB 197 0632 86. The registered office is: One Castle Park, Tower Hill, Bristol BS2 0JA. T 0203 697 5800.
On 11/10/2018 15:24, Bijal Sanghani wrote:
... The NomCom is selected randomly by whatever ‘name in the hat’ process, however to volunteer to be on the NomCom you must have been active in the RIPE community over the last x years by either attending y RIPE meetings or being active on a RIPE mailing list (or some defined criteria).
The NomCom review and select the candidate who is presented to the community to endorse or reject.
This keeps the process lightweight, open and removes the wgcc involvement, unless they want to put their name in the hat of course.
Thoughts?
Going this way bears the danger of selecting a chair who cannot work well with a significant part of the working group chairs. The resulting friction fill discredit our governance, consume a lot of energy better used for constructive work and may even destabilise RIPE. This is not the way to run a railroad. We have to find a real bottom-up selection process that includes the volunteers who help to make RIPE work. And please can we get consensus the "RIPE Chair" document first. Daniel
Going this way bears the danger of selecting a chair who cannot work well with a significant part of the working group chairs.
in the ietf, the nomcom is explicitly expected to get the opinions of the destination group for a candidate for a position in that group. randy
On 18/10/2018 11:24, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
On 11/10/2018 15:24, Bijal Sanghani wrote:
... The NomCom is selected randomly by whatever ‘name in the hat’ process, however to volunteer to be on the NomCom you must have been active in the RIPE community over the last x years by either attending y RIPE meetings or being active on a RIPE mailing list (or some defined criteria).
The NomCom review and select the candidate who is presented to the community to endorse or reject.
This keeps the process lightweight, open and removes the wgcc involvement, unless they want to put their name in the hat of course.
Thoughts?
Going this way bears the danger of selecting a chair who cannot work well with a significant part of the working group chairs. The resulting friction fill discredit our governance, consume a lot of energy better used for constructive work and may even destabilise RIPE. This is not the way to run a railroad.
Are the WG Chairs really that hard to work with? Surely not. If the Chair can't be selected by a group drawn from active members of the community because the WG Chairs have become so distinct that the resulting candidate would pose an unacceptable risk of conflict, friction and destabilisation with them, then we've got much bigger problems than picking a Chair. I hope that isn't the case, and some version of Bijal's community-based approach can be agreed. -- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/ London Internet Exchange Ltd Monument Place, 24 Monument Street London EC3R 8AJ Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
On 11/10/2018 15:24, Bijal Sanghani wrote: ... The NomCom is selected randomly by whatever ‘name in the hat’ process, however to volunteer to be on the NomCom you must have been active in the RIPE community over the last x years by either attending y RIPE meetings or being active on a RIPE mailing list (or some defined criteria). The NomCom review and select the candidate who is presented to the community to endorse or reject. This keeps the process lightweight, open and removes the wgcc involvement, unless they want to put their name in the hat of course. Thoughts? Going this way bears the danger of selecting a chair who cannot work well with a significant part of the working group chairs. The resulting friction fill discredit our governance, consume a lot of energy better used for constructive work and may even destabilise RIPE. This is not
On 18 Oct 2018, at 12:24, Daniel Karrenberg <dfk@ripe.net> wrote: the way to run a railroad.
1) Bijal has raised an extremely valid point and I for one am supportive of her suggestion. 2) WG Chairs can and do change a lot more frequently than the RIPE Chair... so whilst I do think that both parties need to work together, it is important to keep the above in mind and select a good Chair who is able to work with different personalities. The people who volunteer as WG chairs put themselves forward (during their own selection period) knowing who the RIPE Chair is at the time. I am not suggesting for one moment that one is more important than the other. Regards Denesh
We have to find a real bottom-up selection process that includes the volunteers who help to make RIPE work.
And please can we get consensus the "RIPE Chair" document first.
Daniel
On 09/10/2018 08:42, Nurani Nimpuno wrote:
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 believe having a proper Nomcom mechanism is more in the spirit of the bottom-up and transparent nature of this community.
I must confess I didn't read the proposal closely enough before this discussion. The process appears to be: 1. WGCC appoints NomCom 2. NomCom calls for candidates, selects a short-list. 3. WGCC picks a new Chair from the short-list. 4. RIPE community ratifies WGCC decision. That double role for WGCC strikes me as unusual, odd. A more straightforward process would be: 1. WGCC appoints NomCom. 2. NomCom recruits and selects a proposed new Chair. 3. RIPE community ratifies NomCom's decision, confirming appointment. As a more standard approach, presumably this was considered? May I ask the reasons why it was rejected? Malcolm. -- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/ London Internet Exchange Ltd Monument Place, 24 Monument Street London EC3R 8AJ Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
+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
On 9 Oct 2018, at 11:00, Filiz Yilmaz <koalafil@gmail.com> wrote:
I have even more concerns that NOMCOM only hands-over a shortlist to the WG Chairs Collective, who ultimately selects the Chair.
Nope. The RIPE Community ultimately makes that decision. The WGCC should select the best candidate from the shortlist. But the RIPE Community decides if the WGCC made the right choice.
No Jim, according to the process, WG Chairs Collective makes that decision and RIPE Community is left to endorse it, or not. The process reads: "The RIPE community will endorse the candidate put forward by the WG Chair collective." So practically RIPE Community will have the option of "objecting to a name" or "accepting the name". It is a very drastic measure to take compared to selecting names from a pool of candidates. Filiz On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 12:04 PM Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> wrote:
On 9 Oct 2018, at 11:00, Filiz Yilmaz <koalafil@gmail.com> wrote:
I have even more concerns that NOMCOM only hands-over a shortlist to the WG Chairs Collective, who ultimately selects the Chair.
Nope. The RIPE Community ultimately makes that decision. The WGCC should select the best candidate from the shortlist. But the RIPE Community decides if the WGCC made the right choice.
On 9 Oct 2018, at 11:12, Filiz Yilmaz <koalafil@gmail.com> wrote:
So practically RIPE Community will have the option of "objecting to a name" or "accepting the name". It is a very drastic measure to take compared to selecting names from a pool of candidates.
True. But can you come up with something better? FWIW I’d be quite happy to have the NomCom (or equivalent) put forward one name for the community to endorse and eliminate the WGCC from choosing from a shortlist. Fewer moving parts and all that. However if "selecting names from a pool of candidates” is going to be part of the process, it would be wise to have a small group of people making that selection. When there’s a big group of people, it’s much harder to make any sort of decision or reach consensus. More so in a community which is as diverse and opinionated as RIPE. I think the only way the Chair selection can work is for a small group -- I don't care what it’s called or how it’s formed -- to consider a bunch of potential candidates and come up with one name for the community to endorse or reject. Imagine the dysfunctionalism if the entire RIPE community had to select a name or names from a pool of candidates. But hey, that would eliminate a few steps and sanity checks in the process. It would also do away with the need for a Nomcom. So it wouldn’t be all bad. :-)
On 9 Oct 2018, at 15:02, Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> wrote:
On 9 Oct 2018, at 11:12, Filiz Yilmaz <koalafil@gmail.com> wrote:
So practically RIPE Community will have the option of "objecting to a name" or "accepting the name". It is a very drastic measure to take compared to selecting names from a pool of candidates.
True. But can you come up with something better?
At least 3 people already made suggestions so far. See mails from me, Carlos and Malcolm namely. Filiz
On Tue, 9 Oct 2018, Filiz Yilmaz wrote: (...)
- 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.
+1. The WG Chairs, as part of the RIPE Community can then endorse or reject the NOMCOM's output. Publicly. Regards, Carlos
Kind regards Filiz Yilmaz
On 9 Oct 2018, at 11:00, Filiz Yilmaz <koalafil@gmail.com> wrote:
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.
Filiz, that’s a discussion for another thread on another mailing list. IMO the fact there’s no over-arching WG Chair selection process is a strength, not a weakness. It’s also a feature of bottom-up decision making. Each WG gets to decide for itself how the WG is best run. Embrace diversity. :-) Oh, and since those WG Chair mechanisms have come into effect, there has been a healthy but prudent turnover in WG leadership. A complete regime change has taken place in DNS and IPv6. Other WGs are not far behind. Most selection procedures incorporate term limits too. Future discussion on this topic should be moved to another list.
To me it is not an entirely separate discussion because the proposal puts the RIPE Chair selection at the WG Chairs Collective’s hands to a large extend. So expect people to question how these people are selected in the first place in this thread as well. Filiz
On 9 Oct 2018, at 15:14, Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> wrote:
On 9 Oct 2018, at 11:00, Filiz Yilmaz <koalafil@gmail.com> wrote:
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.
Filiz, that’s a discussion for another thread on another mailing list. IMO the fact there’s no over-arching WG Chair selection process is a strength, not a weakness. It’s also a feature of bottom-up decision making. Each WG gets to decide for itself how the WG is best run. Embrace diversity. :-)
Oh, and since those WG Chair mechanisms have come into effect, there has been a healthy but prudent turnover in WG leadership. A complete regime change has taken place in DNS and IPv6. Other WGs are not far behind. Most selection procedures incorporate term limits too.
Future discussion on this topic should be moved to another list.
On 9 Oct 2018, at 12:00, Filiz Yilmaz <koalafil@gmail.com> wrote:
- 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.
Not the case in IETF and not the case at ICANN, where a background process runs after the nomcom sends the slate of candidates. Of course, they can only refuse a candidate on grounds of problems found during the background check. Personally I would prefer the whole community to agree with the nomcom choices (with the wg chairs just doing the equivalent of the background sanity check before forwarding the list). SO the way I see the WG chair involvement in any stage of this is as a purely caretaker of the admin process, not a selection agent. Joao
On 9 Oct 2018, at 08:42, Nurani Nimpuno <nurani@nimblebits.net> wrote:
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.
Nurani, I share these concerns. And I’m also very uneasy about WGCC mission creep. [Personally speaking, I’d close down the WGCC completely. It rarely does anything useful and most of the time isn’t needed. Its role in the PDP could go away IMO.] However in the context of the RIPE Chair selection, we currently have a bootstrapping problem and the WGCC seems to be the most pragmatic and possibly the only way to solve it. Some group which has community standing needs to somehow bootstrap the selection process, particularly launching the Nomcom. The WGCC is effectively the only game in town. Its members have been selected by the community through open and transparent processes. There’s no other group in the RIPE community which has that attribute. So if we don’t want the WGCC to take on this role, who else could do it? We might well argue about whether the WGCC has the expertise to do the job, but that’s a question of implementation. At present we’re trying to figure out how to bootstrap things in our usual open, transparent and bottom-up manner and who/what could do that. If you have a better suggestion than the WGCC (or even having a Nomcom), let’s hear it! How about a Nomcom to appoint the Nomcom? But then who chooses the NomNomCom? :-) Sometimes we simply have to settle for the "good enough” rather than the perfect. That’s just sound engineering.
Jim, Somewhat off-topic, but I'd like to address it anyway. On 2018-10-09 12:02, Jim Reid wrote:
And I’m also very uneasy about WGCC mission creep. [Personally speaking, I’d close down the WGCC completely. It rarely does anything useful and most of the time isn’t needed. Its role in the PDP could go away IMO.]
Just to be clear, the only role that the Working Group Chairs Collective has in the current Policy Development Process is in the appeals procedure. The alternatives would be to ask some other group or person to handle appeals, to invent a new body to handle appeals, or to remove the possibility of appeals. I am comfortable with the current approach, although I might change my mind if anyone ever asked me to work on an appeal. 😉 Cheers, -- Shane
On 9 Oct 2018, at 00:09, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote:
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 wouldn’t be happy Nick but could live with it. After all, the final say rests with the RIPE Community. If they’re comfortable with that somewhat ugly outcome, then we should accept the community's consensus decision. I think the scenario you describe could be addressed by adding clarifying text on conflicts of interest*. For instance, candidates for the RIPE Chair cannot be involved in the appointment of the Nomcom or serve on the Nomcom or have any involvement in the WGCC review of the Nomcom’s shortlist. For bonus points, Joao’s comment about people recusing themself could be added too. This is just common sense. I hoped RIPE wouldn't need to write down these sorts of statements of the bleedin’ obvious. Though if that’s what it takes to remove people’s unease, we should do that. [* That text would also speak to the sanity checking stuff -- rejecting those with a conflict of interest or poor community standing -- I mentioned yesterday.]
On 8 Oct 2018, at 19:02, Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> wrote:
On 8 Oct 2018, at 17:57, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
"The RIPE community will endorse the candidate put forward by the WG Chair collective." oh, you mean the collective that appoints the nomcom? you can see where this appears a bit loose and sloppy
No Randy, I don’t.
then let me try again.
is the candidate put forward by the wg chair collective or by a nomcom. i keep hearing stereo.
How hard can it be?
The selection process
After a shortlist of potential candidates has been identified, the NomCom will hand it over to the WG Chair collective.
The WG Chair collective will actively gather feedback from the RIPE community about each candidate. Based on this feedback, the WG Chair collective will select the best candidate for the job.
That’s not how I remember the discussion nor how the IETF nomcom mechanism works.
The RIPE community will endorse the candidate put forward by the WG Chair collective.
In a formal sense, the same way that, for instance, ISOC rubber stamps the selections of the nomcom before passing them on to the public (ISOC has to do that as caretaker of the IETF, probably going to change with the new scheme). It is just a sanity check not a selection process beyond the nomcom. At RIPE we would have the final say with the community, which would be a step beyond what IETF does. At least that is how I interpreted the discussions.
In short, the Nomcom comes up with a short list. The WGCC chooses someone from that list (or tells the Nomcom to come up with a better list). The WGCC choice goes to the RIPE Community for final approval.
We are a bit out of sync, I believe. Bit of a problem for a last call. Joao
On 9 Oct 2018, at 08:23, Joao Damas <joao@bondis.org> wrote:
We are a bit out of sync, I believe. Bit of a problem for a last call.
Yeah. Still, it’s better to sort this out well ahead of putting the process into action. Act in haste, repent at leisure and all that...
Hi Nick, Randy, You're not the only people to express this sentiment during the process; in particular Liman expressed some misgivings here: https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum/ripe-chair-discuss/PDIyZDB2bm5wO... But if any alternatives have been suggested, I've missed them, and we're now effectively in last call. Have I missed some alternatives in the discussion? Or do you think we would find some if we wait until RIPE78 to try to get consensus? All the best, Anna Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum
But if any alternatives have been suggested, I've missed them, and we're now effectively in last call.
sorry i was insufficiently explicit. random selection from qualified vulunteer pool, à la ietf. randy
On 8 Oct 2018, at 16:36, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
But if any alternatives have been suggested, I've missed them, and we're now effectively in last call.
sorry i was insufficiently explicit. random selection from qualified vulunteer pool, à la ietf.
IIUC that’s what is envisaged here. The WGCC definitely won't be the Nomcom. However it’ll have some role in determining how stuckees get selected for the Nomcom. Something similar to how the IETF nomcom is formed seems the most likely method. Though I suppose the WGCC could have a brain fart and come up with something completely different. YMMV.
Colleagues, Before we discuss how to select a person to fill the role of "RIPE Chair" we should have consensus about what that role is. As the Accountability TF points out, we do not have that yet. Consensus about the role itself will guide us in establishing consensus on a selection process. Doing it the other way around, or in parallel, is neither rational nor effective. Therefore I suggest that we put the discussion of the selection process on hold and work to make serious progress on the role description during the coming week. Maybe we can even have a consensus call on Friday! This quickly addresses one of the recommendations of the Accountability TF as well. Over the last couple of months I have drafted the RIPE document below. The text is based on my personal knowledge of the RIPE Chair role from its inception until the present time. It incorporates comments from knowledgeable members of the community including the current chair and some WG chairs. Let us establish consensus about the status-quo first and let us avoid mixing that with a discussion about how to evolve the role. Once we have consensus about the status-quo we can continue the discussion on the selection process from a more solid basis. We can also have a discussion about evolving the role itself based on changes to a consensus document. Please let the list know whether you agree/disagree to proceed like this! Please suggest new or alternative text for the document below so that we can make progress towards consensus. Daniel -------- The RIPE Chair Daniel Karrenberg [looking for co-authors] ripe-xxxx DRAFT - Version 0.5 October 2018 Scope We describe the role of the RIPE chair as it has evolved from 1989 until the present time. We intend to document current practice specifically for the sake of those who have not witnessed its evolution. This documents represents RIPE community consensus about the role. Function of the RIPE Chair The RIPE chair ensures that the RIPE community functions well. This one sentence fully describes the role, function and task of the RIPE Chair. All current practices described below all directly follow from this. Current Practices of the RIPE Chair This is not intended to fully describe the activities of the RIPE chair or to prescribe the actions of the RIPE chair in any way. The ordering is not intended to convey any meaning either. The RIPE chair sets the agenda for the RIPE meetings and chairs the meetings. The RIPE chair determines the location of the RIPE meetings. The RIPE chair ensures that RIPE establishes consensus about how RIPE operates, particularly about formal procedures. The RIPE chair ensures that useful WGs and task forces are properly created, chartered and disbanded. The RIPE chair ensures that WG chairs are properly selected. The RIPE chair chairs and supports the WG chair collective as necessary. The RIPE chair monitors the work of RIPE and intervenes where necessary. The RIPE chair ensures that the results of RIPE work are communicated to other parties, such as the RIPE NCC, other RIRs and government bodies. Note: RIPE is not formally represented in other organisations. Therefore the RIPE chair does not formally represent RIPE anywhere. The RIPE chair reports their actions to the community as appropriate. The RIPE chair delegates their duties when appropriate to an appropriate person or entity such as the RIPE NCC, a working group chair or a committee, such as the RIPE programme committee. Note: Between 1990 and 1992 the RIPE Chair delegated some of his duties to a vice chair.
Colleagues,
Before we discuss how to select a person to fill the role of "RIPE Chair" we should have consensus about what that role is. As the Accountability TF points out, we do not have that yet. Consensus about the role itself will guide us in establishing consensus on a selection process. Doing it the other way around, or in parallel, is neither rational nor effective.
Therefore I suggest that we put the discussion of the selection process on hold and work to make serious progress on the role description during the coming week. Maybe we can even have a consensus call on Friday! This quickly addresses one of the recommendations of the Accountability TF as well.
Over the last couple of months I have drafted the RIPE document below. The text is based on my personal knowledge of the RIPE Chair role from its inception until the present time. It incorporates comments from knowledgeable members of the community including the current chair and some WG chairs.
Let us establish consensus about the status-quo first and let us avoid mixing that with a discussion about how to evolve the role. Once we have consensus about the status-quo we can continue the discussion on the selection process from a more solid basis. We can also have a discussion about evolving the role itself based on changes to a consensus document.
Please let the list know whether you agree/disagree to proceed like this!
Please suggest new or alternative text for the document below so that we can make progress towards consensus.
Daniel I like this, it isn't too formal and it's descriptive rather than
On 14/10/2018 13:21, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: prescriptive, which always seems to me to be the best way of proceeding in cases such as this. Where i differ is in thinking that the process of selecting the RIPE Chair can pretty well be decoupled from the job description. However I'd not lose sleep if we decide to sort out the job description first. Is it appropriate to formalise the job of the vice chair at this time (if we decide to have a vice chair)? Nigel
On 14 Oct 2018, at 13:18, Nigel Titley <nigel@titley.com> wrote:
I like this, it isn't too formal and it's descriptive rather than prescriptive, which always seems to me to be the best way of proceeding in cases such as this.
+1
Where i differ is in thinking that the process of selecting the RIPE Chair can pretty well be decoupled from the job description. However I'd not lose sleep if we decide to sort out the job description first.
Well it looks like we'll have consensus on the job description before we have that on the selection process. Creating a dependency between the two will add unwelcome complexity IMO.
Is it appropriate to formalise the job of the vice chair at this time (if we decide to have a vice chair)?
How about this: The vice chair deputises for the chair as needed and deals with all the stuff that the RIPE chair doesn't want to do?
On 14/10/2018 14:35, Jim Reid wrote:
Well it looks like we'll have consensus on the job description before we have that on the selection process. Creating a dependency between the two will add unwelcome complexity IMO.
Yep...
Is it appropriate to formalise the job of the vice chair at this time (if we decide to have a vice chair)? How about this:
The vice chair deputises for the chair as needed and deals with all the stuff that the RIPE chair doesn't want to do? Well, suitably dressed up in Sunday clothes this sounds about right.
Nigel
On 14/10/2018 14:49, Nigel Titley wrote:
On 14/10/2018 14:35, Jim Reid wrote:
Well it looks like we'll have consensus on the job description before we have that on the selection process. Creating a dependency between the two will add unwelcome complexity IMO.
Yep...
Is it appropriate to formalise the job of the vice chair at this time (if we decide to have a vice chair)? How about this:
The vice chair deputises for the chair as needed and deals with all the stuff that the RIPE chair doesn't want to do? Well, suitably dressed up in Sunday clothes this sounds about right.
There is precedent for exactly this. It worked. Daniel Former RIPE deputy chairman.
On 14/10/2018 14:18, Nigel Titley wrote:
... Where i differ is in thinking that the process of selecting the RIPE Chair can pretty well be decoupled from the job description. However I'd not lose sleep if we decide to sort out the job description first. ...
I propose this sequence because of proposals in the selection discussion that are not suitable for the particular role. It is hard to argue this in a concise and constructive way if there is no clear consensus about the role first. Daniel
On 14/10/2018 16:10, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
... Where i differ is in thinking that the process of selecting the RIPE Chair can pretty well be decoupled from the job description. However I'd not lose sleep if we decide to sort out the job description first. ... I propose this sequence because of proposals in the selection discussion
On 14/10/2018 14:18, Nigel Titley wrote: that are not suitable for the particular role. It is hard to argue this in a concise and constructive way if there is no clear consensus about the role first.
Well as I say, I'll not lose sleep one way or the other. Nigel
On Sun, 14 Oct 2018, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
Colleagues,
Before we discuss how to select a person to fill the role of "RIPE Chair" we should have consensus about what that role is. As the Accountability TF points out, we do not have that yet. Consensus about the role itself will guide us in establishing consensus on a selection process. Doing it the other way around, or in parallel, is neither rational nor effective.
Therefore I suggest that we put the discussion of the selection process on hold and work to make serious progress on the role description during the coming week. Maybe we can even have a consensus call on Friday! This quickly addresses one of the recommendations of the Accountability TF as well.
Over the last couple of months I have drafted the RIPE document below. The text is based on my personal knowledge of the RIPE Chair role from its inception until the present time. It incorporates comments from knowledgeable members of the community including the current chair and some WG chairs.
Let us establish consensus about the status-quo first and let us avoid mixing that with a discussion about how to evolve the role. Once we have consensus about the status-quo we can continue the discussion on the selection process from a more solid basis. We can also have a discussion about evolving the role itself based on changes to a consensus document.
Please let the list know whether you agree/disagree to proceed like this!
Agree. Cheers, Carlos
Please suggest new or alternative text for the document below so that we can make progress towards consensus.
Daniel
--------
The RIPE Chair
Daniel Karrenberg [looking for co-authors]
ripe-xxxx
DRAFT - Version 0.5 October 2018
Scope
We describe the role of the RIPE chair as it has evolved from 1989 until the present time. We intend to document current practice specifically for the sake of those who have not witnessed its evolution. This documents represents RIPE community consensus about the role.
Function of the RIPE Chair
The RIPE chair ensures that the RIPE community functions well.
This one sentence fully describes the role, function and task of the RIPE Chair. All current practices described below all directly follow from this.
Current Practices of the RIPE Chair
This is not intended to fully describe the activities of the RIPE chair or to prescribe the actions of the RIPE chair in any way. The ordering is not intended to convey any meaning either.
The RIPE chair sets the agenda for the RIPE meetings and chairs the meetings.
The RIPE chair determines the location of the RIPE meetings.
The RIPE chair ensures that RIPE establishes consensus about how RIPE operates, particularly about formal procedures.
The RIPE chair ensures that useful WGs and task forces are properly created, chartered and disbanded.
The RIPE chair ensures that WG chairs are properly selected.
The RIPE chair chairs and supports the WG chair collective as necessary.
The RIPE chair monitors the work of RIPE and intervenes where necessary.
The RIPE chair ensures that the results of RIPE work are communicated to other parties, such as the RIPE NCC, other RIRs and government bodies. Note: RIPE is not formally represented in other organisations. Therefore the RIPE chair does not formally represent RIPE anywhere.
The RIPE chair reports their actions to the community as appropriate.
The RIPE chair delegates their duties when appropriate to an appropriate person or entity such as the RIPE NCC, a working group chair or a committee, such as the RIPE programme committee. Note: Between 1990 and 1992 the RIPE Chair delegated some of his duties to a vice chair.
Good morning, All the feedback about the "RIPE Chair" document has been positive so far and people say that they want to get on with it. If you have more to contribute, please talk to me! I read this list and I am at the meeting. A number of people commented that this mailing list is not very well known. So please make interested people aware of it. Here is version 0.6. No substantive changes, just minor clean-up. diff at the end. Daniel ====== The RIPE Chair Daniel Karrenberg ripe-xxxx DRAFT - Version 0.6 October 2018 Scope We describe the role of the RIPE chair as it has evolved from 1989 until the present time. We intend to document current practice specifically for the sake of those who have not witnessed its evolution. This documents represents RIPE community consensus about the role. Function of the RIPE Chair The RIPE chair ensures that the RIPE community functions well. This one sentence fully describes the role, function and task of the RIPE Chair. All current practices described below all directly follow from this. Current Practices of the RIPE Chair This is not intended to fully describe the activities of the RIPE chair nor to prescribe the actions of the RIPE chair in any way. The ordering is not intended to convey any meaning either. The RIPE chair sets the agenda for the RIPE meetings and chairs the meetings. The RIPE chair determines the location of the RIPE meetings. The RIPE chair ensures that RIPE establishes consensus about how RIPE operates, particularly about formal procedures. The RIPE chair ensures that useful WGs and task forces are properly created, chartered and disbanded. The RIPE chair ensures that WG chairs are properly selected. The RIPE chair chairs and supports the WG chair collective as necessary. The RIPE chair monitors the work of RIPE and intervenes where necessary. The RIPE chair ensures that the results of RIPE work are communicated to other parties, such as the RIPE NCC, other organisations and government bodies. Note: RIPE is not formally represented in other organisations. Therefore the RIPE chair does not formally represent RIPE anywhere. The RIPE chair reports their actions to the community as appropriate. The RIPE chair delegates their duties when appropriate to an appropriate person or entity such as the RIPE NCC, a working group chair or a committee, such as the RIPE programme committee. Note: Between 1990 and 1992 the RIPE Chair delegated some of his duties to a deputy chair. -------- diff 4d3 < [looking for co-authors] 8c7 < DRAFT - Version 0.5 ---
DRAFT - Version 0.6 30c29 < or to prescribe the actions of the RIPE chair in any way.
nor to prescribe the actions of the RIPE chair in any way. 51c50 < other parties, such as the RIPE NCC, other RIRs and government bodies.
other parties, such as the RIPE NCC, other organisations and government bodies. 61c60 < to a vice chair.
to a deputy chair.
Looks good to me Daniel - thanks. I think the final paragraph should be trimmed (less is more) to: The RIPE chair delegates their duties when appropriate to an appropriate person or entity.
Jim, Considered that after you said it before. Decided to leave it in because examples make it more clear and hph felt it was important to tie in the PC, also for clarity. My apologies for not pointing this out earlier. Daniel --- Sent from a handheld device.
On 17. Oct 2018, at 10:21, Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> wrote:
Looks good to me Daniel - thanks.
I think the final paragraph should be trimmed (less is more) to:
The RIPE chair delegates their duties when appropriate to an appropriate person or entity.
On 17 Oct 2018, at 09:29, Daniel Karrenberg <dfk@ripe.net> wrote:
Considered that after you said it before. Decided to leave it in because examples make it more clear and hph felt it was important to tie in the PC, also for clarity.
My apologies for not pointing this out earlier.
OK Daniel. My concern about providing an illustrative list is the potential it offers for shed painting and whatabootery*. Or, years later, our original intentions get forgotten and people then think that delegation is only allowed to the entities on the list. * A Scottish word for raising non-sequiturs: "what about..."
Jim, I understand this concern and tried to address it thus: „This is not intended to fully describe the activities of the RIPE chair nor to prescribe the actions of the RIPE chair in any way. The ordering is not intended to convey any meaning either.“ ... „such as“ ... The list of examples has significant descriptive power and originates from substantive comments, as I have mentioned earlier. Does this address your concern? If not see me and we will address this interactively. Daniel --- Sent from a handheld device.
On 17. Oct 2018, at 12:04, Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> wrote:
On 17 Oct 2018, at 09:29, Daniel Karrenberg <dfk@ripe.net> wrote:
Considered that after you said it before. Decided to leave it in because examples make it more clear and hph felt it was important to tie in the PC, also for clarity.
My apologies for not pointing this out earlier.
OK Daniel. My concern about providing an illustrative list is the potential it offers for shed painting and whatabootery*. Or, years later, our original intentions get forgotten and people then think that delegation is only allowed to the entities on the list.
* A Scottish word for raising non-sequiturs: "what about..."
Hi,
The RIPE chair delegates their duties when appropriate to an appropriate person or entity such as the RIPE NCC, a working group chair or a committee, such as the RIPE programme committee. Note: Between 1990 and 1992 the RIPE Chair delegated some of his duties to a deputy chair.
The draft of the selection document refers to the appointment of a Vice Chair by the same process as the RIPE Chair is appointed. With that in mind, should that role be referred to specifically in the description of the roles of the RIPE Chair, rather than a passing reference to an historic position? Cheers, Rob Jisc is a registered charity (number 1149740) and a company limited by guarantee which is registered in England under Company No. 5747339, VAT No. GB 197 0632 86. Jisc’s registered office is: One Castlepark, Tower Hill, Bristol, BS2 0JA. T 0203 697 5800. Jisc Services Limited is a wholly owned Jisc subsidiary and a company limited by guarantee which is registered in England under company number 2881024, VAT number GB 197 0632 86. The registered office is: One Castle Park, Tower Hill, Bristol BS2 0JA. T 0203 697 5800.
On 17/10/2018 11:15, Rob Evans wrote:
Hi,
The RIPE chair delegates their duties when appropriate to an appropriate person or entity such as the RIPE NCC, a working group chair or a committee, such as the RIPE programme committee. Note: Between 1990 and 1992 the RIPE Chair delegated some of his duties to a deputy chair.
The draft of the selection document refers to the appointment of a Vice Chair by the same process as the RIPE Chair is appointed. With that in mind, should that role be referred to specifically in the description of the roles of the RIPE Chair, rather than a passing reference to an historic position?
Cheers, Rob
Yes it should in a future revision once we establish consensus on resurrecting the deputy chair. The scope of the current document is to describe the status-quo including some history. Let us get consensus that this is the status quo first and evolve it from there. Progress is made one step at a time. Daniel
Good afternoon, Here is version 0.7 of "The RIPE Chair". There are no substantive changes just some polishing based on comments and one correction: Hans Petter pointed out that Antonio Blasco Bonito and Milan Sterba have served as RIPE deputy chairmen from 1992 onwards. I have had quite some positive feedback at the meeting and no serious concerns anywhere so far. So I suggest that the RIPE chair issues a "last call" on this at the Friday plenary and we get on with it. Daniel ----------- diff at the end The RIPE Chair Daniel Karrenberg ripe-xxxx DRAFT - Version 0.7 October 2018 Scope We describe the role of the RIPE chair as it has evolved from 1989 until the present time. We document current practice specifically for the sake of those who have not witnessed its evolution and to record RIPE community consensus about the role. This document will be revised as the role of the RIPE Chair evolves. Function of the RIPE Chair The RIPE chair ensures that the RIPE community functions well. This one sentence fully describes the role, function and task of the RIPE Chair. All current practices described below all directly follow from this. Current Practices of the RIPE Chair This is not intended to fully describe the activities of the RIPE chair nor to constrain the actions of the RIPE chair in any way. Examples are purely for illustration and the ordering is not intended to convey any meaning either. The RIPE chair sets the agenda for the RIPE meetings and chairs the meetings. The RIPE chair determines the location of the RIPE meetings. The RIPE chair ensures that RIPE establishes consensus about how RIPE operates, particularly about formal procedures. The RIPE chair ensures that useful WGs and task forces are properly created, chartered and disbanded. The RIPE chair ensures that WG chairs are properly selected. The RIPE chair chairs and supports the WG chair collective as necessary. The RIPE chair monitors the work of RIPE and intervenes where necessary. The RIPE chair ensures that the results of RIPE work are communicated to other parties, such as the RIPE NCC, other organisations and government bodies. Note: RIPE is not formally represented in other organisations. Therefore the RIPE chair does not formally represent RIPE anywhere. The RIPE chair reports their actions to the community as appropriate. The RIPE chair delegates their duties when appropriate to an appropriate person or entity such as the RIPE NCC, a working group chair or a committee, such as the RIPE programme committee. Note: In the 1990s the RIPE Chair used to delegate some of his duties to deputy chairs selected by the community. Acknowledgements Hans Petter Holen Jim Reid have contributed significantly. ----------- 7c7 < DRAFT - Version 0.6 ---
DRAFT - Version 0.7 9a10
13,15c14,18 < until the present time. We intend to document current practice < specifically for the sake of those who have not witnessed its evolution. < This documents represents RIPE community consensus about the role. ---
until the present time. We document current practice specifically for the sake of those who have not witnessed its evolution and to record RIPE community consensus about the role. This document will be revised as the role of the RIPE Chair evolves.
29,30c32,34 < nor to prescribe the actions of the RIPE chair in any way. < The ordering is not intended to convey any meaning either. ---
nor to constrain the actions of the RIPE chair in any way. Examples are purely for illustration and the ordering is not intended to convey any meaning either. 50a55
59,60c64,73 < Note: Between 1990 and 1992 the RIPE Chair delegated some of his duties < to a deputy chair. ---
Note: In the 1990s the RIPE Chair used to delegate some of his duties to deputy chairs selected by the community.
Acknowledgements
Hans Petter Holen Jim Reid have contributed significantly.
On 18 Oct 2018, at 12:10, Daniel Karrenberg <dfk@ripe.net> wrote:
I have had quite some positive feedback at the meeting and no serious concerns anywhere so far. So I suggest that the RIPE chair issues a "last call" on this at the Friday plenary and we get on with it.
+1. The "job description" is concise and complete. It's time to approve it.
+1 Support from me best regards Wolfgang
On 18. Oct 2018, at 14:31, Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> wrote:
On 18 Oct 2018, at 12:10, Daniel Karrenberg <dfk@ripe.net> wrote:
I have had quite some positive feedback at the meeting and no serious concerns anywhere so far. So I suggest that the RIPE chair issues a "last call" on this at the Friday plenary and we get on with it.
+1.
The "job description" is concise and complete. It's time to approve it.
-- Wolfgang Tremmel Phone +49 69 1730902 26 | Fax +49 69 4056 2716 | Mobile +49 171 8600 816 | wolfgang.tremmel@de-cix.net Geschaeftsfuehrer Harald A. Summa | Registergericht AG Köln HRB 51135 DE-CIX Management GmbH | Lindleystrasse 12 | 60314 Frankfurt am Main | Germany | www.de-cix.net
On 18/10/2018 13:10, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
Good afternoon,
Here is version 0.7 of "The RIPE Chair". There are no substantive changes just some polishing based on comments and one correction: Hans Petter pointed out that Antonio Blasco Bonito and Milan Sterba have served as RIPE deputy chairmen from 1992 onwards.
I have had quite some positive feedback at the meeting and no serious concerns anywhere so far. So I suggest that the RIPE chair issues a "last call" on this at the Friday plenary and we get on with it.
+1 from me Nigel
Daniel, Thank you so much for your work (and Jim and HPH's) on this. The text looks good to me. I would (and perhaps this was all part of your plan before v1.0) be very nitpicky and suggest consistent capitalisation, but that is implementation detail and doesn't take away from the fact that I believe the content is all good! Thanks again, Brian Brian Nisbet Network Operations Manager HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland +35316609040 brian.nisbet@heanet.ie www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270 On 18/10/2018, 13:10, "ripe-chair-discuss on behalf of Daniel Karrenberg" <ripe-chair-discuss-bounces@ripe.net on behalf of dfk@ripe.net> wrote: Good afternoon, Here is version 0.7 of "The RIPE Chair". There are no substantive changes just some polishing based on comments and one correction: Hans Petter pointed out that Antonio Blasco Bonito and Milan Sterba have served as RIPE deputy chairmen from 1992 onwards. I have had quite some positive feedback at the meeting and no serious concerns anywhere so far. So I suggest that the RIPE chair issues a "last call" on this at the Friday plenary and we get on with it. Daniel ----------- diff at the end The RIPE Chair Daniel Karrenberg ripe-xxxx DRAFT - Version 0.7 October 2018 Scope We describe the role of the RIPE chair as it has evolved from 1989 until the present time. We document current practice specifically for the sake of those who have not witnessed its evolution and to record RIPE community consensus about the role. This document will be revised as the role of the RIPE Chair evolves. Function of the RIPE Chair The RIPE chair ensures that the RIPE community functions well. This one sentence fully describes the role, function and task of the RIPE Chair. All current practices described below all directly follow from this. Current Practices of the RIPE Chair This is not intended to fully describe the activities of the RIPE chair nor to constrain the actions of the RIPE chair in any way. Examples are purely for illustration and the ordering is not intended to convey any meaning either. The RIPE chair sets the agenda for the RIPE meetings and chairs the meetings. The RIPE chair determines the location of the RIPE meetings. The RIPE chair ensures that RIPE establishes consensus about how RIPE operates, particularly about formal procedures. The RIPE chair ensures that useful WGs and task forces are properly created, chartered and disbanded. The RIPE chair ensures that WG chairs are properly selected. The RIPE chair chairs and supports the WG chair collective as necessary. The RIPE chair monitors the work of RIPE and intervenes where necessary. The RIPE chair ensures that the results of RIPE work are communicated to other parties, such as the RIPE NCC, other organisations and government bodies. Note: RIPE is not formally represented in other organisations. Therefore the RIPE chair does not formally represent RIPE anywhere. The RIPE chair reports their actions to the community as appropriate. The RIPE chair delegates their duties when appropriate to an appropriate person or entity such as the RIPE NCC, a working group chair or a committee, such as the RIPE programme committee. Note: In the 1990s the RIPE Chair used to delegate some of his duties to deputy chairs selected by the community. Acknowledgements Hans Petter Holen Jim Reid have contributed significantly. ----------- 7c7 < DRAFT - Version 0.6 --- > DRAFT - Version 0.7 9a10 > 13,15c14,18 < until the present time. We intend to document current practice < specifically for the sake of those who have not witnessed its evolution. < This documents represents RIPE community consensus about the role. --- > until the present time. We document current practice specifically > for the sake of those who have not witnessed its evolution and > to record RIPE community consensus about the role. This document > will be revised as the role of the RIPE Chair evolves. > 29,30c32,34 < nor to prescribe the actions of the RIPE chair in any way. < The ordering is not intended to convey any meaning either. --- > nor to constrain the actions of the RIPE chair in any way. > Examples are purely for illustration and the ordering is not intended > to convey any meaning either. 50a55 > 59,60c64,73 < Note: Between 1990 and 1992 the RIPE Chair delegated some of his duties < to a deputy chair. --- > > Note: In the 1990s the RIPE Chair used to delegate some of his duties > to deputy chairs selected by the community. > > > Acknowledgements > > Hans Petter Holen > Jim Reid > have contributed significantly.
On 18/10/2018 15:05, Brian Nisbet wrote:
... suggest consistent capitalisation ...
And here is version 0.8 addressing that and completing the acknowledgements. I suggest that Hans Petter calls for consensus on this version. Thank you to all who provided comments both here and in private. I have enjoyed the constructive and positive attitude of all who contributed. Daniel ------ diff at the end The RIPE Chair Daniel Karrenberg ripe-xxxx DRAFT - Version 0.8 October 2018 Scope We describe the role of the RIPE chair as it has evolved from 1989 until the present time. We document current practice specifically for the sake of those who have not witnessed its evolution and to record RIPE community consensus about the role. This document will be revised as the role of the RIPE chair evolves. Function of the RIPE Chair The RIPE chair ensures that the RIPE community functions well. This one sentence fully describes the role, function and task of the RIPE chair. All current practices described below directly follow from this. Current Practices of the RIPE Chair This is not intended to fully describe the activities of the RIPE chair nor to constrain the actions of the RIPE chair in any way. Examples are purely for illustration and the ordering is not intended to convey any meaning. The RIPE chair sets the agenda for the RIPE meetings and chairs the meetings. The RIPE chair determines the location of the RIPE meetings. The RIPE chair ensures that RIPE establishes consensus about how RIPE operates, particularly about formal procedures. The RIPE chair ensures that useful WGs and task forces are properly created, chartered and disbanded. The RIPE chair ensures that WG chairs are properly selected. The RIPE chair chairs and supports the WG chair collective as necessary. The RIPE chair monitors the work of RIPE and intervenes where necessary. The RIPE chair ensures that the results of RIPE work are communicated to other parties, such as the RIPE NCC, other organisations and government bodies. Note: RIPE is not formally represented in other organisations. Therefore the RIPE chair does not formally represent RIPE anywhere. The RIPE chair reports their actions to the community as appropriate. The RIPE chair delegates their duties when appropriate to an appropriate person or entity such as the RIPE NCC, a working group chair or a committee, such as the RIPE programme committee. Note: In the 1990s the RIPE chair used to delegate some of his duties to deputy chairs selected by the community. Acknowledgements This document is based on ground work by Mirjam Kühne. Hans Petter Holen and Jim Reid have contributed significantly. ------- 7c7 < DRAFT - Version 0.7 ---
DRAFT - Version 0.8 17c17 < will be revised as the role of the RIPE Chair evolves.
will be revised as the role of the RIPE chair evolves. 25c25 < RIPE Chair. All current practices described below all directly follow
RIPE chair. All current practices described below directly follow 34c34 < to convey any meaning either.
to convey any meaning. 65c65 < Note: In the 1990s the RIPE Chair used to delegate some of his duties
Note: In the 1990s the RIPE chair used to delegate some of his duties 71,73c71,72 < Hans Petter Holen < Jim Reid < have contributed significantly.
This document is based on ground work by Mirjam Kühne. Hans Petter Holen and Jim Reid have contributed significantly.
After seeing consensus emerging on the list and at the RIPE meeting, I opened the last call at the closing ot the plenary. I have however not done last call on the list, so lets leave the call open to the end of the year before I declare consensus and ask the RIPE NCC to publish as a RIPE document. Hans Petter Holen RIPE Chair On Fri, 19 Oct 2018 at 15:23, Daniel Karrenberg <dfk@ripe.net> wrote:
On 18/10/2018 15:05, Brian Nisbet wrote:
... suggest consistent capitalisation ...
And here is version 0.8 addressing that and completing the acknowledgements. I suggest that Hans Petter calls for consensus on this version.
Thank you to all who provided comments both here and in private. I have enjoyed the constructive and positive attitude of all who contributed.
Daniel
------ diff at the end
The RIPE Chair
Daniel Karrenberg
ripe-xxxx
DRAFT - Version 0.8 October 2018
Scope
We describe the role of the RIPE chair as it has evolved from 1989 until the present time. We document current practice specifically for the sake of those who have not witnessed its evolution and to record RIPE community consensus about the role. This document will be revised as the role of the RIPE chair evolves.
Function of the RIPE Chair
The RIPE chair ensures that the RIPE community functions well.
This one sentence fully describes the role, function and task of the RIPE chair. All current practices described below directly follow from this.
Current Practices of the RIPE Chair
This is not intended to fully describe the activities of the RIPE chair nor to constrain the actions of the RIPE chair in any way. Examples are purely for illustration and the ordering is not intended to convey any meaning.
The RIPE chair sets the agenda for the RIPE meetings and chairs the meetings.
The RIPE chair determines the location of the RIPE meetings.
The RIPE chair ensures that RIPE establishes consensus about how RIPE operates, particularly about formal procedures.
The RIPE chair ensures that useful WGs and task forces are properly created, chartered and disbanded.
The RIPE chair ensures that WG chairs are properly selected.
The RIPE chair chairs and supports the WG chair collective as necessary.
The RIPE chair monitors the work of RIPE and intervenes where necessary.
The RIPE chair ensures that the results of RIPE work are communicated to other parties, such as the RIPE NCC, other organisations and government bodies.
Note: RIPE is not formally represented in other organisations. Therefore the RIPE chair does not formally represent RIPE anywhere.
The RIPE chair reports their actions to the community as appropriate.
The RIPE chair delegates their duties when appropriate to an appropriate person or entity such as the RIPE NCC, a working group chair or a committee, such as the RIPE programme committee.
Note: In the 1990s the RIPE chair used to delegate some of his duties to deputy chairs selected by the community.
Acknowledgements
This document is based on ground work by Mirjam Kühne. Hans Petter Holen and Jim Reid have contributed significantly.
-------
7c7 < DRAFT - Version 0.7 ---
DRAFT - Version 0.8 17c17 < will be revised as the role of the RIPE Chair evolves.
will be revised as the role of the RIPE chair evolves. 25c25 < RIPE Chair. All current practices described below all directly follow
RIPE chair. All current practices described below directly follow 34c34 < to convey any meaning either.
to convey any meaning. 65c65 < Note: In the 1990s the RIPE Chair used to delegate some of his duties
Note: In the 1990s the RIPE chair used to delegate some of his duties 71,73c71,72 < Hans Petter Holen < Jim Reid < have contributed significantly.
This document is based on ground work by Mirjam Kühne. Hans Petter Holen and Jim Reid have contributed significantly.
-- Sincerely, Hans Petter Holen - hph@oslo.net - +47 45066054
As I have seen no further comments to the document, I declare that we have consensus of the RIPE Chair document.. I will ask the RIPE NCC to publish this as a RIPE document. Hans Petter Holen RIPE Chair On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 at 12:21, Hans Petter Holen <hph@oslo.net> wrote:
After seeing consensus emerging on the list and at the RIPE meeting, I opened the last call at the closing ot the plenary.
I have however not done last call on the list, so lets leave the call open to the end of the year before I declare consensus and ask the RIPE NCC to publish as a RIPE document.
Hans Petter Holen RIPE Chair
On Fri, 19 Oct 2018 at 15:23, Daniel Karrenberg <dfk@ripe.net> wrote:
On 18/10/2018 15:05, Brian Nisbet wrote:
... suggest consistent capitalisation ...
And here is version 0.8 addressing that and completing the acknowledgements. I suggest that Hans Petter calls for consensus on this version.
Thank you to all who provided comments both here and in private. I have enjoyed the constructive and positive attitude of all who contributed.
Daniel
------ diff at the end
The RIPE Chair
Daniel Karrenberg
ripe-xxxx
DRAFT - Version 0.8 October 2018
Scope
We describe the role of the RIPE chair as it has evolved from 1989 until the present time. We document current practice specifically for the sake of those who have not witnessed its evolution and to record RIPE community consensus about the role. This document will be revised as the role of the RIPE chair evolves.
Function of the RIPE Chair
The RIPE chair ensures that the RIPE community functions well.
This one sentence fully describes the role, function and task of the RIPE chair. All current practices described below directly follow from this.
Current Practices of the RIPE Chair
This is not intended to fully describe the activities of the RIPE chair nor to constrain the actions of the RIPE chair in any way. Examples are purely for illustration and the ordering is not intended to convey any meaning.
The RIPE chair sets the agenda for the RIPE meetings and chairs the meetings.
The RIPE chair determines the location of the RIPE meetings.
The RIPE chair ensures that RIPE establishes consensus about how RIPE operates, particularly about formal procedures.
The RIPE chair ensures that useful WGs and task forces are properly created, chartered and disbanded.
The RIPE chair ensures that WG chairs are properly selected.
The RIPE chair chairs and supports the WG chair collective as necessary.
The RIPE chair monitors the work of RIPE and intervenes where necessary.
The RIPE chair ensures that the results of RIPE work are communicated to other parties, such as the RIPE NCC, other organisations and government bodies.
Note: RIPE is not formally represented in other organisations. Therefore the RIPE chair does not formally represent RIPE anywhere.
The RIPE chair reports their actions to the community as appropriate.
The RIPE chair delegates their duties when appropriate to an appropriate person or entity such as the RIPE NCC, a working group chair or a committee, such as the RIPE programme committee.
Note: In the 1990s the RIPE chair used to delegate some of his duties to deputy chairs selected by the community.
Acknowledgements
This document is based on ground work by Mirjam Kühne. Hans Petter Holen and Jim Reid have contributed significantly.
-------
7c7 < DRAFT - Version 0.7 ---
DRAFT - Version 0.8 17c17 < will be revised as the role of the RIPE Chair evolves.
will be revised as the role of the RIPE chair evolves. 25c25 < RIPE Chair. All current practices described below all directly follow
RIPE chair. All current practices described below directly follow 34c34 < to convey any meaning either.
to convey any meaning. 65c65 < Note: In the 1990s the RIPE Chair used to delegate some of his duties
Note: In the 1990s the RIPE chair used to delegate some of his duties 71,73c71,72 < Hans Petter Holen < Jim Reid < have contributed significantly.
This document is based on ground work by Mirjam Kühne. Hans Petter Holen and Jim Reid have contributed significantly.
-- Sincerely, Hans Petter Holen - hph@oslo.net - +47 45066054
-- Sincerely, Hans Petter Holen - hph@oslo.net - +47 45066054
On 18 Oct 2018, at 13:10, Daniel Karrenberg <dfk@ripe.net> wrote: Good afternoon, Here is version 0.7 of "The RIPE Chair".
Thanks Daniel. +1 from me. Regards Denesh
There are no substantive changes just some polishing based on comments and one correction: Hans Petter pointed out that Antonio Blasco Bonito and Milan Sterba have served as RIPE deputy chairmen from 1992 onwards.
I have had quite some positive feedback at the meeting and no serious concerns anywhere so far. So I suggest that the RIPE chair issues a "last call" on this at the Friday plenary and we get on with it.
Daniel
----------- diff at the end
The RIPE Chair
Daniel Karrenberg
ripe-xxxx
DRAFT - Version 0.7 October 2018
Scope
We describe the role of the RIPE chair as it has evolved from 1989 until the present time. We document current practice specifically for the sake of those who have not witnessed its evolution and to record RIPE community consensus about the role. This document will be revised as the role of the RIPE Chair evolves.
Function of the RIPE Chair
The RIPE chair ensures that the RIPE community functions well.
This one sentence fully describes the role, function and task of the RIPE Chair. All current practices described below all directly follow from this.
Current Practices of the RIPE Chair
This is not intended to fully describe the activities of the RIPE chair nor to constrain the actions of the RIPE chair in any way. Examples are purely for illustration and the ordering is not intended to convey any meaning either.
The RIPE chair sets the agenda for the RIPE meetings and chairs the meetings.
The RIPE chair determines the location of the RIPE meetings.
The RIPE chair ensures that RIPE establishes consensus about how RIPE operates, particularly about formal procedures.
The RIPE chair ensures that useful WGs and task forces are properly created, chartered and disbanded.
The RIPE chair ensures that WG chairs are properly selected.
The RIPE chair chairs and supports the WG chair collective as necessary.
The RIPE chair monitors the work of RIPE and intervenes where necessary.
The RIPE chair ensures that the results of RIPE work are communicated to other parties, such as the RIPE NCC, other organisations and government bodies.
Note: RIPE is not formally represented in other organisations. Therefore the RIPE chair does not formally represent RIPE anywhere.
The RIPE chair reports their actions to the community as appropriate.
The RIPE chair delegates their duties when appropriate to an appropriate person or entity such as the RIPE NCC, a working group chair or a committee, such as the RIPE programme committee.
Note: In the 1990s the RIPE Chair used to delegate some of his duties to deputy chairs selected by the community.
Acknowledgements
Hans Petter Holen Jim Reid have contributed significantly.
-----------
7c7 < DRAFT - Version 0.6 ---
DRAFT - Version 0.7 9a10
13,15c14,18 < until the present time. We intend to document current practice < specifically for the sake of those who have not witnessed its evolution. < This documents represents RIPE community consensus about the role. ---
until the present time. We document current practice specifically for the sake of those who have not witnessed its evolution and to record RIPE community consensus about the role. This document will be revised as the role of the RIPE Chair evolves.
29,30c32,34 < nor to prescribe the actions of the RIPE chair in any way. < The ordering is not intended to convey any meaning either. ---
nor to constrain the actions of the RIPE chair in any way. Examples are purely for illustration and the ordering is not intended to convey any meaning either. 50a55
59,60c64,73 < Note: Between 1990 and 1992 the RIPE Chair delegated some of his duties < to a deputy chair. ---
Note: In the 1990s the RIPE Chair used to delegate some of his duties to deputy chairs selected by the community.
Acknowledgements
Hans Petter Holen Jim Reid have contributed significantly.
Sorry for top posting, this draft looks good and sum it up well. --- Roger J --- On Thu, Oct 18, 2018, 13:10 Daniel Karrenberg <dfk@ripe.net> wrote:
Good afternoon,
Here is version 0.7 of "The RIPE Chair". There are no substantive changes just some polishing based on comments and one correction: Hans Petter pointed out that Antonio Blasco Bonito and Milan Sterba have served as RIPE deputy chairmen from 1992 onwards.
I have had quite some positive feedback at the meeting and no serious concerns anywhere so far. So I suggest that the RIPE chair issues a "last call" on this at the Friday plenary and we get on with it.
Daniel
----------- diff at the end
The RIPE Chair
Daniel Karrenberg
ripe-xxxx
DRAFT - Version 0.7 October 2018
Scope
We describe the role of the RIPE chair as it has evolved from 1989 until the present time. We document current practice specifically for the sake of those who have not witnessed its evolution and to record RIPE community consensus about the role. This document will be revised as the role of the RIPE Chair evolves.
Function of the RIPE Chair
The RIPE chair ensures that the RIPE community functions well.
This one sentence fully describes the role, function and task of the RIPE Chair. All current practices described below all directly follow from this.
Current Practices of the RIPE Chair
This is not intended to fully describe the activities of the RIPE chair nor to constrain the actions of the RIPE chair in any way. Examples are purely for illustration and the ordering is not intended to convey any meaning either.
The RIPE chair sets the agenda for the RIPE meetings and chairs the meetings.
The RIPE chair determines the location of the RIPE meetings.
The RIPE chair ensures that RIPE establishes consensus about how RIPE operates, particularly about formal procedures.
The RIPE chair ensures that useful WGs and task forces are properly created, chartered and disbanded.
The RIPE chair ensures that WG chairs are properly selected.
The RIPE chair chairs and supports the WG chair collective as necessary.
The RIPE chair monitors the work of RIPE and intervenes where necessary.
The RIPE chair ensures that the results of RIPE work are communicated to other parties, such as the RIPE NCC, other organisations and government bodies.
Note: RIPE is not formally represented in other organisations. Therefore the RIPE chair does not formally represent RIPE anywhere.
The RIPE chair reports their actions to the community as appropriate.
The RIPE chair delegates their duties when appropriate to an appropriate person or entity such as the RIPE NCC, a working group chair or a committee, such as the RIPE programme committee.
Note: In the 1990s the RIPE Chair used to delegate some of his duties to deputy chairs selected by the community.
Acknowledgements
Hans Petter Holen Jim Reid have contributed significantly.
-----------
7c7 < DRAFT - Version 0.6 ---
DRAFT - Version 0.7 9a10
13,15c14,18 < until the present time. We intend to document current practice < specifically for the sake of those who have not witnessed its evolution. < This documents represents RIPE community consensus about the role. ---
until the present time. We document current practice specifically for the sake of those who have not witnessed its evolution and to record RIPE community consensus about the role. This document will be revised as the role of the RIPE Chair evolves.
29,30c32,34 < nor to prescribe the actions of the RIPE chair in any way. < The ordering is not intended to convey any meaning either. ---
nor to constrain the actions of the RIPE chair in any way. Examples are purely for illustration and the ordering is not intended to convey any meaning either. 50a55
59,60c64,73 < Note: Between 1990 and 1992 the RIPE Chair delegated some of his duties < to a deputy chair. ---
Note: In the 1990s the RIPE Chair used to delegate some of his duties to deputy chairs selected by the community.
Acknowledgements
Hans Petter Holen Jim Reid have contributed significantly.
participants (21)
-
Anna Wilson -
Bijal Sanghani -
Brian Nisbet -
Carlos Friaças -
Daniel Karrenberg -
Denesh Bhabuta -
Filiz Yilmaz -
Hans Petter Holen -
Jim Reid -
Joao Damas -
Malcolm Hutty -
Mirjam Kuehne -
Nick Hilliard -
Nigel Titley -
Nurani Nimpuno -
Peter Koch -
Randy Bush -
Rob Evans -
Roger Jørgensen -
Shane Kerr -
Wolfgang Tremmel