RIPE Chair appointment procedure, some ideas
Greetings, I mostly agree with Gordon Lennox.
From the discussion at RIPE73 in Madrid, i also agree with the idea of having a Vice-Chair.
When the Chair steps down, the Vice-Chair could automatically become Chair (if he/she accepts). When a new Vice-Chair appointment is needed, i would say the best recruiting base would be the WG Chairs group (currently more than 20 people, right?). Either asking the WG Chair with more time on his/her record on that role/group to step up as Vice-Chair, or run an election process if two (or more) WG Chairs wish to become Vice-Chair on the same opportunity, sounds acceptable to me. We can also strenghten this by requiring that the new Vice-Chair is supported by *N* WG Chairs, despite its current time count as a WG Chair. I would also argue that former WG Chairs should be "eligible" -- especially if noone from the current set of WG Chairs wants to become Vice-Chair. And if time count becomes a criteria, all the time spent on the WG Chair role should be considered. Best Regards, ______________ Carlos Friaças Coordenador do RCTS CERT / Head of RCTS CERT (www.cert.rcts.pt) Fundação para Ciência e a Tecnologia, I.P. (www.fct.pt) Unidade FCCN - Computação Científica Nacional (www.fccn.pt) Av. do Brasil, 101, 1700-066 Lisboa, Portugal [+351] 218440100
I am sure that thinking will be referred to the sub-committee on future objectives prioritization to determine if thinking should be identified as a stretch goal and the standing committee on committees will open a hearing regarding how to expedite the creation of future committees that would be empowered to actually take action after an incident was identified by the board. -- Gary Buhrmaster
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016, Randy Bush wrote:
I am sure that thinking will be referred to the sub-committee on future objectives prioritization to determine if thinking should be identified as a stretch goal and the standing committee on committees will open a hearing regarding how to expedite the creation of future committees that would be empowered to actually take action after an incident was identified by the board. -- Gary Buhrmaster
That approach sounds a lot more robust, yes. Thank You. :-) Cheers, Carlos
On 15 Nov 2016, at 22:49, Carlos Friacas <cfriacas@fccn.pt> wrote:
Either asking the WG Chair with more time on his/her record on that role/group to step up as Vice-Chair, or run an election process if two (or more) WG Chairs wish to become Vice-Chair on the same opportunity, sounds acceptable to me.
Please don't talk about "elections" in this specific context. We have to decide on the *selection* process first. An election is just one of many possibilities of selecting the candidate(s). Until we have consensus that election is the way to proceed -- and I hope we never converge on that option -- it is inappropriate to talk about electing the RIPE (Vice) Chair.
On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 01:45:19AM +0000, Jim Reid wrote:
Either asking the WG Chair with more time on his/her record on that role/group to step up as Vice-Chair, or run an election process if two (or more) WG Chairs wish to become Vice-Chair on the same opportunity, sounds acceptable to me.
Please don't talk about "elections" in this specific context. We have to decide on the *selection* process first. An election is just one of many possibilities of selecting the candidate(s). Until we have consensus that election is the way to proceed -- and I hope we never converge on that option -- it is inappropriate to talk about electing the RIPE (Vice) Chair.
Amen. We vote and elect all the time, just that some people insist calling this 'consensus building'. That said, when someone suggests a procedure for determining the chair and that includes an election, I'm missing the basis on which to declare the wording 'inappropriate'. Eligibility (mind the etymilogical proximity to 'election') criteria are certainly an issue, as is common sense. -Peter
On 16 Nov 2016, at 02:31, Peter Koch <pk@DENIC.DE> wrote:
On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 01:45:19AM +0000, Jim Reid wrote:
Please don't talk about "elections" in this specific context. We have to decide on the *selection* process first. An election is just one of many possibilities of selecting the candidate(s). Until we have consensus that election is the way to proceed -- and I hope we never converge on that option -- it is inappropriate to talk about electing the RIPE (Vice) Chair.
Amen. We vote and elect all the time, just that some people insist calling this 'consensus building'. That said, when someone suggests a procedure for determining the chair and that includes an election, I'm missing the basis on which to declare the wording 'inappropriate'.
When we talk of "election" before deciding that this is the way to go, it unfairly biases the discussion in that direction. It creates a mindset/environment which excludes other possibilities or discourages people from suggesting them.
Eligibility (mind the etymilogical proximity to 'election') criteria are certainly an issue, as is common sense.
Wow! We're in agreement! Scary. :-) IMO, the enthusiasts for electing the RIPE Chair need to first solve the eligibility criteria. This is a difficult, perhaps impossible, problem to solve in a forum like RIPE which is completely open and has no membership.
Hi, On Wed, 16 Nov 2016, Jim Reid wrote: (...)
When we talk of "election" before deciding that this is the way to go, it unfairly biases the discussion in that direction. It creates a mindset/environment which excludes other possibilities or discourages people from suggesting them.
Making it a "not-so-appropriate-word" to use during a discussion, may also create some bias :-)) Again, i didn't say an electi*n is an absolute need, nor did i say that it was my preference. Please note i only mentioned it as a possibility if two (or more) people *with* a proven track record within the community (and that to me is being a WG Chair, but probably not exclusively...) step up. (...)
IMO, the enthusiasts for electing the RIPE Chair need to first solve the eligibility criteria. This is a difficult, perhaps impossible, problem to solve in a forum like RIPE which is completely open and has no membership.
Everyone (in theory) has a voice. If there are no voices against... I also don't think that we absolutely need to close any eligibility criteria at a 1st try. :-) Cheers, Carlos
Hello, On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 8:49 AM, Carlos Friacas <cfriacas@fccn.pt> wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016, Jim Reid wrote:
(...)
When we talk of "election" before deciding that this is the way to go, it unfairly biases the discussion in that direction. It creates a mindset/environment which excludes other possibilities or discourages people from suggesting them.
Making it a "not-so-appropriate-word" to use during a discussion, may also create some bias :-))
+ 1.
IMO, the enthusiasts for electing the RIPE Chair need to first solve the eligibility criteria. This is a difficult, perhaps impossible, problem to solve in a forum like RIPE which is completely open and has no membership.
Everyone (in theory) has a voice. If there are no voices against... I also don't think that we absolutely need to close any eligibility criteria at a 1st try. :-)
+1. While I do not agree with all the points Carlos has made, I think content of his mail was totally to the point, well expressed, and perfectly within scope of this mailing list and the discussion point in hand. Lets focus on the ideas instead of trying to police the discussions. Everything can be discussed at once. HPH and the community has enough maturity to read them all and process them all together. No need for categorisation or some kind of filtering. The scope of the discussion list is clear; we are discussing a selection process for RIPE Chair position. Elections can be used as a form of a selection process and supporters of that should not be put under any kind of pressure or impression that they cannot raise their views already now. Kind regards Filiz
Cheers, Carlos
On 16 Nov 2016, at 13:35, Filiz Yilmaz <koalafil@gmail.com> wrote:
While I do not agree with all the points Carlos has made, I think content of his mail was totally to the point, well expressed, and perfectly within scope of this mailing list and the discussion point in hand.
Nobody was saying it wasn't.
Lets focus on the ideas instead of trying to police the discussions.
Indeed. But nobody was doing that either. All I asked for was a bit more care over our use of terminology.
Elections can be used as a form of a selection process and supporters of that should not be put under any kind of pressure or impression that they cannot raise their views already now.
Filiz, I deeply, deeply resent the implication that my earlier comment was an attempt to put anyone under pressure or filter the discussion or prevent anyone raising their views. It absolutely wasn't. For the avoidance of doubt, anyone can say whatever they want here. Or on any other RIPE list for that matter. Modulo the usual norms of list etiquette of course. Discussions of elections are clearly in scope. Obviously. However we should be particularly careful not to talk about "electing the Chair" when the context is "selecting the Chair". As you rightly pointed out an election is just one of many possible selection options. It will be more than unfortunate if those other options get ignored or suppressed if this list gives people the (mistaken) idea that election is the only game in town for the selection process. That will surely happen if discussions about how the chair could be selected get conflated with discussions about how the chair could be be elected. These are two very different things and therefore should be separated from each other. IMO there are essentially two key discussion strands for this list: 1) Selection/appointment methods: election, consensus, nomcom, random lottery, HPH just declaring his successor, beauty contest (swimsuit round optional), cage fight, etc. 2) How each selection/appointment method -- or at least the most likely methods -- could be implemented.
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016, Jim Reid wrote:
On 15 Nov 2016, at 22:49, Carlos Friacas <cfriacas@fccn.pt> wrote:
Either asking the WG Chair with more time on his/her record on that role/group to step up as Vice-Chair, or run an election process if two (or more) WG Chairs wish to become Vice-Chair on the same opportunity, sounds acceptable to me.
Please don't talk about "elections" in this specific context. We have to decide on the *selection* process first. An election is just one of many possibilities of selecting the candidate(s). Until we have consensus that election is the way to proceed -- and I hope we never converge on that option -- it is inappropriate to talk about electing the RIPE (Vice) Chair.
Hi Jim, All, What i stated previously is that running some sort of restricted (s)election would be something that wouldn't shock me. Regards, Carlos
Carlos, At 2016-11-15 22:49:17 +0000 Carlos Friacas <cfriacas@fccn.pt> wrote:
From the discussion at RIPE73 in Madrid, i also agree with the idea of having a Vice-Chair.
Yes, I think having a vice-chair makes sense. Probably the role would be something like: 1. Serve as Chair if the Chair is temporarily or permanently unable to perform Chair duties. 2. Assist the Chair in any way that the Chair and Vice-Chair find reasonable.
When the Chair steps down, the Vice-Chair could automatically become Chair (if he/she accepts). When a new Vice-Chair appointment is needed, i would say the best recruiting base would be the WG Chairs group (currently more than 20 people, right?).
So you think that the Chair selection process should actually be the Vice-Chair selection process? I'm not sure about that. It seems like being a Vice-Chair should be about helping the Chair, not just waiting around for the Chair to retire. ;) If we don't consider the Vice-Chair to be a "Chair in Waiting", the we can just let the Chair pick. That seems like the best way to get someone who can help out with a style that matches the Chair.
Either asking the WG Chair with more time on his/her record on that role/group to step up as Vice-Chair, or run an election process if two (or more) WG Chairs wish to become Vice-Chair on the same opportunity, sounds acceptable to me.
We can also strenghten this by requiring that the new Vice-Chair is supported by *N* WG Chairs, despite its current time count as a WG Chair.
I would also argue that former WG Chairs should be "eligible" -- especially if noone from the current set of WG Chairs wants to become Vice-Chair. And if time count becomes a criteria, all the time spent on the WG Chair role should be considered.
I don't like having a requirement for the Vice-Chair (or Chair) to be a current or former RIPE working group chair. Certainly being a working group chair is valuable experience for the role, but I don't think a necessary requirement. Cheers, -- Shane
On Thu, 17 Nov 2016, Shane Kerr wrote:
Carlos,
Hi,
At 2016-11-15 22:49:17 +0000 Carlos Friacas <cfriacas@fccn.pt> wrote:
From the discussion at RIPE73 in Madrid, i also agree with the idea of having a Vice-Chair.
Yes, I think having a vice-chair makes sense. Probably the role would be something like:
1. Serve as Chair if the Chair is temporarily or permanently unable to perform Chair duties.
2. Assist the Chair in any way that the Chair and Vice-Chair find reasonable.
100% agree, with 1. and 2.
When the Chair steps down, the Vice-Chair could automatically become Chair (if he/she accepts). When a new Vice-Chair appointment is needed, i would say the best recruiting base would be the WG Chairs group (currently more than 20 people, right?).
So you think that the Chair selection process should actually be the Vice-Chair selection process? I'm not sure about that. It seems like being a Vice-Chair should be about helping the Chair, not just waiting around for the Chair to retire. ;)
Haven't thought about that angle... :-) "Forcing" any new Chair to serve as Vice-Chair will not only provide more insight, but might increase the community's confidence on a future Chair. Anyway, any Vice-Chair should be able to step down when he/she wishes, or if the Chair thinks the Vice-Chair needs to be replaced. I guess that "OR" should be an important feature ;-)
If we don't consider the Vice-Chair to be a "Chair in Waiting", the we can just let the Chair pick. That seems like the best way to get someone who can help out with a style that matches the Chair.
I can agree with that. On the other hand, if a consensus between the Chair and the community can be found, even better...
Either asking the WG Chair with more time on his/her record on that role/group to step up as Vice-Chair, or run an election process if two (or more) WG Chairs wish to become Vice-Chair on the same opportunity, sounds acceptable to me.
We can also strenghten this by requiring that the new Vice-Chair is supported by *N* WG Chairs, despite its current time count as a WG Chair.
I would also argue that former WG Chairs should be "eligible" -- especially if noone from the current set of WG Chairs wants to become Vice-Chair. And if time count becomes a criteria, all the time spent on the WG Chair role should be considered.
I don't like having a requirement for the Vice-Chair (or Chair) to be a current or former RIPE working group chair. Certainly being a working group chair is valuable experience for the role, but I don't think a necessary requirement.
I don't have that experience, and as such, i appreciate the voluntary work/effort done by WG Chairs, from present and past. If no requirements are needed/set, in theory, even a newcomer could be (s)elec*ed as a new Chair -- and i don't really like that possibility :-) Cheers, Carlos
Cheers,
-- Shane
Hello, I am with Shane here: I would not like to limit the candidacy too tight, to a particular group, regarding to the recent mail from Carlos specifically, to WG Chairs collective. I think anyone should be allowed be a candidate if they are willing to serve as a RIPE Chair [Maybe it can be limited to non-RIPE NCC Staff and non-NCC Board at the best. ] This way we keep the candidacy pool rich. But of course experience will be a factor in their selection process as a RIPE Chair. For example former NCC Board members could also make very good RIPE Chairs in principle, who may or may not have been WG Chairs in the past, but will have heaps of experience in consensus building and leadership. [Side note: I would not like to see any current Board member being the RIPE Chair while they keep their Board position. Ideally RIPE Chair should be exclusively from community imo...) Having said that utilising the collective knowledge and experience of the WG Chairs Group can be a good idea too. What about the following, roughly speaking: - Anybody can be a candidate, with the possible exception of RIPE NCC Staff and Board. Otherwise, they need to leave their positions at the RIPE NCC, if they get selected as the RIPE Chair at the end of the process to avoid conflict of interest or perception of it. - WG Chairs Collective at the time evaluates all candidates and comes up with a list of eligible candidates. - RIPE Community runs an election among these eligible candidates (Like the ones we run for NRO NC reps or RIPE PC...). - Vice-Chair gets appointed by the elected-RIPE Chair. Filiz On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 9:10 AM, Carlos Friacas <cfriacas@fccn.pt> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Nov 2016, Shane Kerr wrote:
Carlos,
Hi,
At 2016-11-15 22:49:17 +0000 Carlos Friacas <cfriacas@fccn.pt> wrote:
From the discussion at RIPE73 in Madrid, i also agree with the idea of having a Vice-Chair.
Yes, I think having a vice-chair makes sense. Probably the role would be something like:
1. Serve as Chair if the Chair is temporarily or permanently unable to perform Chair duties.
2. Assist the Chair in any way that the Chair and Vice-Chair find reasonable.
100% agree, with 1. and 2.
When the Chair steps down, the Vice-Chair could automatically become Chair (if he/she accepts). When a new Vice-Chair appointment is needed, i would say the best recruiting base would be the WG Chairs group (currently more than 20 people, right?).
So you think that the Chair selection process should actually be the Vice-Chair selection process? I'm not sure about that. It seems like being a Vice-Chair should be about helping the Chair, not just waiting around for the Chair to retire. ;)
Haven't thought about that angle... :-)
"Forcing" any new Chair to serve as Vice-Chair will not only provide more insight, but might increase the community's confidence on a future Chair.
Anyway, any Vice-Chair should be able to step down when he/she wishes, or if the Chair thinks the Vice-Chair needs to be replaced. I guess that "OR" should be an important feature ;-)
If we don't consider the Vice-Chair to be a "Chair in Waiting", the we can just let the Chair pick. That seems like the best way to get someone who can help out with a style that matches the Chair.
I can agree with that. On the other hand, if a consensus between the Chair and the community can be found, even better...
Either asking the WG Chair with more time on his/her record on that role/group to step up as Vice-Chair, or run an election process if two (or more) WG Chairs wish to become Vice-Chair on the same opportunity, sounds acceptable to me.
We can also strenghten this by requiring that the new Vice-Chair is supported by *N* WG Chairs, despite its current time count as a WG Chair.
I would also argue that former WG Chairs should be "eligible" -- especially if noone from the current set of WG Chairs wants to become Vice-Chair. And if time count becomes a criteria, all the time spent on the WG Chair role should be considered.
I don't like having a requirement for the Vice-Chair (or Chair) to be a current or former RIPE working group chair. Certainly being a working group chair is valuable experience for the role, but I don't think a necessary requirement.
I don't have that experience, and as such, i appreciate the voluntary work/effort done by WG Chairs, from present and past. If no requirements are needed/set, in theory, even a newcomer could be (s)elec*ed as a new Chair -- and i don't really like that possibility :-)
Cheers, Carlos
Cheers,
-- Shane
On 17 Nov 2016, at 10:18, Filiz Yilmaz <koalafil@gmail.com> wrote:
What about the following, roughly speaking:
- Anybody can be a candidate, with the possible exception of RIPE NCC Staff and Board. Otherwise, they need to leave their positions at the RIPE NCC, if they get selected as the RIPE Chair at the end of the process to avoid conflict of interest or perception of it.
- WG Chairs Collective at the time evaluates all candidates and comes up with a list of eligible candidates.
- RIPE Community runs an election among these eligible candidates (Like the ones we run for NRO NC reps or RIPE PC...).
- Vice-Chair gets appointed by the elected-RIPE Chair.
Changing election and elected to selection and selected, would make this work for me.* If we can converge on this outline, we can then move on to a discussion about how the RIPE community appoints the Chair. One of those mechanisms might be an election. The form of words above pre-judges the outcome of that discussion: ie all possibilities which are not an election are excluded and not to be considered. *I would prefer the evaluation to be done by a broader group than just the WG Chair Collective: the NCC Board and/or Management should probably have a say too. That then starts to look like a nomcom. Hmmm. I also think it would be better to use the same process (whatever that process may be) to appoint the Chair and Vice Chair. Assuming we have a Vice Chair.
On 18/11/2016 01:34, Jim Reid wrote:
On 17 Nov 2016, at 10:18, Filiz Yilmaz <koalafil@gmail.com> wrote:
What about the following, roughly speaking:
- Anybody can be a candidate, with the possible exception of RIPE NCC Staff and Board. Otherwise, they need to leave their positions at the RIPE NCC, if they get selected as the RIPE Chair at the end of the process to avoid conflict of interest or perception of it.
- WG Chairs Collective at the time evaluates all candidates and comes up with a list of eligible candidates.
- RIPE Community runs an election among these eligible candidates (Like the ones we run for NRO NC reps or RIPE PC...).
- Vice-Chair gets appointed by the elected-RIPE Chair.
Changing election and elected to selection and selected, would make this work for me.*
If we can converge on this outline, we can then move on to a discussion about how the RIPE community appoints the Chair. One of those mechanisms might be an election.
The form of words above pre-judges the outcome of that discussion: ie all possibilities which are not an election are excluded and not to be considered.
*I would prefer the evaluation to be done by a broader group than just the WG Chair Collective: the NCC Board and/or Management should probably have a say too. That then starts to look like a nomcom. Hmmm. I also think it would be better to use the same process (whatever that process may be) to appoint the Chair and Vice Chair. Assuming we have a Vice Chair.
While I quite like the shape of Filiz's suggestions I would be very careful of the level of input given to the NCC Management and/or Board. While the RIPE Chair has to work very closely with the NCC, this is a Community decision and must be clearly seen as same. If we do go for a NomCom I'd be inclined to suggest the WG Chairs, the RIPE PC and possibly the community selected NRO members. I would very much agree with the conflict of interest provisions extending to RIPE PC and WG Chairs. Albeit it is easier for them to step down than for a permanent NCC staff member! Of course if a candidate comes from one of the groups who are making up a NomCom, then they should, at the very least, recluse themselves from that whole process. Thanks, Brian
Hi, (inline) On Fri, 18 Nov 2016, Brian Nisbet wrote:
While I quite like the shape of Filiz's suggestions I would be very careful of the level of input given to the NCC Management and/or Board. While the RIPE Chair has to work very closely with the NCC, this is a Community decision and must be clearly seen as same.
+1
If we do go for a NomCom I'd be inclined to suggest the WG Chairs, the RIPE PC and possibly the community selected NRO members.
+1
I would very much agree with the conflict of interest provisions extending to RIPE PC and WG Chairs. Albeit it is easier for them to step down than for a permanent NCC staff member! Of course if a candidate comes from one of the groups who are making up a NomCom, then they should, at the very least, recluse themselves from that whole process.
+1
Thanks,
Brian
Just a few cents to add: When talking about the PC, probably involving the non-permanent/(s)elect*d PC members -- i.e. RIPE meeting hosts (from the last *N* meetings) -- could broaden up a bit the community support (and diversity?). Cheers, Carlos
OK, it’s Friday, time for a little rat-holing.
If we do go for a NomCom I'd be inclined to suggest the WG Chairs, the RIPE PC and possibly the community selected NRO members.
The set of people described above is quite large, and not necessarily well-bound. There should indeed be a representative from each of those committees on the NomCom, but I think the bulk should come via some other method, whether it’s randomly selected people from a large pool (a la IETF) or the sender of the sixth message to members-discuss on each full moon. Otherwise, I support Filiz’ suggestion. 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.
Filiz and all, At 2016-11-17 11:18:28 +0100 Filiz Yilmaz <koalafil@gmail.com> wrote:
I think anyone should be allowed be a candidate if they are willing to serve as a RIPE Chair [Maybe it can be limited to non-RIPE NCC Staff and non-NCC Board at the best. ] This way we keep the candidacy pool rich. But of course experience will be a factor in their selection process as a RIPE Chair. For example former NCC Board members could also make very good RIPE Chairs in principle, who may or may not have been WG Chairs in the past, but will have heaps of experience in consensus building and leadership. [Side note: I would not like to see any current Board member being the RIPE Chair while they keep their Board position. Ideally RIPE Chair should be exclusively from community imo...)
I think this is a specific case of conflicts of interest avoidance, right? In principle, we also need to worry about the general case. For example, what about staff for other RIR? What about government officials? What about ICANN board members? What about IP brokers? And so on. I'm actually not worried about RIPE NCC staff, since that organization seems frankly overly-cautious about staff participation (for full disclosure, I used to work there and was given "the talk" on several occasions because I can't keep my opinions to myself). ;) But of course companies change and with a different regime maybe it would be a potential problem. I also think that RIPE PC and RIPE working group chairs should be excluded, since the RIPE Chair also serves as oversight for both of those bodies. My own preference would be something like: Candidates should be aware and transparent about their conflicts of interest, or potential conflicts of interest. In particular serving RIPE PC members, serving RIPE working group chairs, current RIPE NCC board members, and current RIPE NCC staff may not serve as RIPE Chair. Anyone in one or more of these positions may put themselves forward as candidates, if they will step down from any conflicting position when selected as RIPE Chair.
Having said that utilising the collective knowledge and experience of the WG Chairs Group can be a good idea too.
What about the following, roughly speaking:
- Anybody can be a candidate, with the possible exception of RIPE NCC Staff and Board. Otherwise, they need to leave their positions at the RIPE NCC, if they get selected as the RIPE Chair at the end of the process to avoid conflict of interest or perception of it.
Basically agree, see text above.
- WG Chairs Collective at the time evaluates all candidates and comes up with a list of eligible candidates.
Seems fairly reasonable. While a relatively large group, it is not that unwieldy and saves making an Electoral College - which seems like a bad idea to me at this point in history. ;) It should be clear that the current RIPE Chair - while technically part of the WG Chairs Collective - should not participate in this activity. Presumably discussions are NOT public for the privacy of everyone involved.
- RIPE Community runs an election among these eligible candidates (Like the ones we run for NRO NC reps or RIPE PC...).
Maybe with some tweaks. I'm not 100% happy with the NRO NC election process, although I am of course thrilled with the actual outcome. ;)
- Vice-Chair gets appointed by the elected-RIPE Chair.
Yup! Cheers, -- Shane
participants (8)
-
Brian Nisbet -
Carlos Friacas -
Filiz Yilmaz -
Jim Reid -
Peter Koch -
Randy Bush -
Rob Evans -
Shane Kerr