On 14/05/2020 20:57, Brian Nisbet wrote:> I still have yet to see any clear explanation of what is so wrong

here and I don't think that the conversations (and that's all they are still) about remuneration or otherwise, would really have changed that much, candidate wise.

Indeed. I would expect that such a conversation (and input) would happen also tomorrow during NomCom open office hours (from 11:00 to 18:00) via Zoom call, appointment through support@ripe-nomcom.org. Conversation slots are still available. https://ripe-nomcom.org/office-hours-during-ripe-80/ Cheers, Jan

Hi, On Fri, 15 May 2020, Gordon Lennox wrote:

I hear various voices.

I hear people saying, sometimes gently, always I feel sincerely, that they are unhappy with where we find ourselves.

I hear people saying that a lot of work has gone into this process over a considerable period of time and that it should be allowed to play out.

I heard Randy and Liman mention Rob. I smiled at that, not least because the younger folk and the new-comers obviously cannot relate to that idea. In any case what did Rob do? He did not get involved in setting up a procedure. He did not initiate a selection process. He sort of picked a ?random member of the audience? and said it was now their task. Maybe he was just being pragmatic in the circumstances.

So I hear different things. They are not always necessarily in contradiction.

I do not think we should ignore the people who have indicated they are unhappy. I think many people thought that, in this setting, good people following an agreed process would just work. And if it risked not working a degree pf pragmatism would come in.

I recognise the hard work that has gone in. Let me say, thank you. And it would indeed be nice if significant effort always ensured acceptable outcomes. But am i the only one who has had a project cancelled or had to stop a project? Whatever. Sunk costs, in whatever form, do not represent the best argument.

Of course the question has been rightly put: so what do we do? Pragmatically...

I think Hans-Petter should carry on as interim chair. I think he should be supported in this by Mirjam. That should be straightforward. He is her boss! This continues until we get ourselves sorted. I trust that that should not take much longer!

I think collectively though we need to get at least some some inkling to the answers to certain questions that cannot perhaps be fully answered publicly. Who else thought about putting their name forward? Who else was approached? Why did people in the end decide against?

I mostly agree with the above except about extending Hans-Petter burden in the current context. (...)

To end on lighter note, I was asked by somebody, not on the noncom, if I was interested.

You also did cross my mind. :-)

I laughed! I am enjoying my freedom too much.

That's exactly why you might also be a got choice. Your starting point is "freedom".

But I also had in mind a number of other people - I had not made a list - that I thought who would be very good.

I tried to do that exercise, by looking at the list of RIPE80 attendees (which, obviously would also leave out some excellent people for the role). Note that i wrote "role", not "job". I end up with about a dozen names. Some of which are part of the current NomCom. Let's hope for the best! Regards, Carlos

Gordon

Hello all, Like several others, I am uneasy with how this is proceeding. I also find it unpleasant to categorise people who bring their concerns to this list as “complaining”, I see it as providing feedback. I’m aware the relevant policies have reached consensus quite some time ago, and to the best of my knowledge, they are being followed to the letter. However, I think it is too simple to say that just because this is how it was written, that is undoubtedly always the right path forward and beyond criticism. A number of things have happened since the adoption of the policy, which some or many of us may not have anticipated: - The at the time RIPE chair becoming the MD of the RIPE NCC and currently being interim chair - A current RIPE NCC staff member being a nominee - The possibility of the RIPE chair being a paid position This situation not being anticipated, at least not by me, may have contributed to why the concerns were not raised while the process was developed. It does not inherently make the concerns invalid. None of these things are wrong, and individually it may have mattered less, but it creates the situation where: - Potential nominees were not accurately informed about the impact of being RIPE chair - Two of the people involved in the NomCom, although non-voting, being RIPE NCC employees, while being included in a decision process over another RIPE NCC employee, who may become RIPE chair Now, none of this is a violation of process, everyone involved in the NomCom and the nominees have acted correctly, and I’m sure they are able to separate their hats. The process has been followed precisely, nobody has acted improperly, but still I think the optics of it are just bad. Personally, I think the worst part is the inconsistency in whether or not the RIPE chair is a paid position, because it may have excluded potential nominees, and it’s not like we have that many anyways. However, the process does not technically forbid this situation, so also here, what is happening is technically correct, but it looks pretty bad. That said, how do we move forward? Extending the current situation by months at least is not a good option, because the interim RIPE chair and the RIPE NCC MD being the same person also looks bad - and seems like too much work for one person. Having Hans Petter as RIPE chair with support from Mirjam is even worse optics, in my opinion. Simply appointing another interim chair has all the downsides that this process was aiming to improve upon. So, even with valid concerns about the optics of proceeding as originally planned, I think our only choice is to move forward with what we have. I don’t like this choice, but all other options are just as bad or worse, both in terms of process and optics. (The suggestion of using the dispute resolution process is a bit odd to me, because what has happened so far is technically in line with what was written - the NomCom has not violated any policy.) Sasha

Dave Knight wrote on 15/05/2020 17:39:

It feels like the deeper issue here is not so much about the chair selection process as it is the grey area of where the separation between RIPE Community and RIPE NCC lies.

Dave, there are a number of different issues here, interrelated. The more important issue is the working relationship between the RIPE NCC MD, the Nomcom Chair and one of the candidates. Generally-accepted principles of good governance suggest that it is best to avoid making governance-related decisions where governance neutrality is a critical requirement, but where there are relationships of authority involved. I believe we have now found ourselves in this situation. Some people have questioned whether any of this reflects on the NomCom process, but it's not unusual for processes to be affected by external events. In this situation, the process didn't anticipate that the RIPE Chair would become RIPE NCC MD. Now, there isn't a de facto problem with a RIPE Chair becoming RIPE NCC MD, at least where protections have been put in place (and in this case they were), but it has an impact on the NomCom process and we can't ignore this. The other thing you bring up is the relationship between the RIPE Community and the RIPE NCC. There's a much broader underlying issue of how this relationship has worked and ought to work, but either the RIPE NCC and/or its staff should have direct input in RIPE Community policy and affairs, or they shouldn't, or something in-between. If they should, then there is no compelling need for the NomCom to outline all the steps that it's taken to show its independence from the RIPE NCC. For that matter, why are RIPE NCC staff members encouraged not to contribute to RIPE policy discussions? And if they shouldn't have direct input into RIPE Community stuff, then how would this be compatible with the NomCom / RIPE NCC relationship situation as it stands? Th NCC/Community relationship is something complex, and sits somewhere in between these two poles, and each side has always resisted defining it too carefully. That said, we may be running into a case here which demonstrates weakness in this approach. I don't believe, incidentally, that re- or over-defining this relationship will fix the problem at hand (or any other problems for that matter), but that doesn't mean we shouldn't acknowledge the complexity of the relationship. The root issue here seems more to be a problem of circumstance and not of people. I'm directly concerned that if it continues, whatever outcome happens will be open to questions about governance and that result would be detrimental to all. I think Andy is right to ask for the process to stop so that we can take stock of what's going on and make changes if necessary. Nick