CAUTION[External]: This email originated from outside of the organisation. Do not click on links or open the attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe.


Gert Doering wrote on 26/05/2020 07:20:
> We have a document that tells us what to do.  We do that.
>
> In the middle of the road, concerns are voiced that the document is not
> good enough - which might be a valid statement or not, but how should it
> affect the current process, given the simultaneously expressed support for
> all the persons involved?

The problem is not with the process, or the document, and it is
particularly not with the people involved.

The problem is with the roles that some of the people involved in this
process hold within the RIPE NCC, and the relationship between those
roles.  Specifically, the chair of the nomcom and one of the RIPE chair
candidates are NCC employees who report to the RIPE NCC MD, who is also
ad-interim RIPE Chair.

We have a bottom-line expectation that the RIPE Chair is independent of
the RIPE NCC, and this position has been expressed unequivocally by the
nomcom.

It is not tenable to hold this expectation and at the same time for the
NomCom to be chaired by a RIPE NCC staff member, while one of the
candidates is also a RIPE NCC staff member, and where the current RIPE
Chair is the RIPE NCC MD.

This situation was further complicated mid-process by the announcement
that the RIPE Chair position would be funded by the RIPE NCC, thereby
raising further questions about the ability of the RIPE Chair to
maintain independence from the RIPE NCC.

The timing of this announcement was also difficult, as it happened after
the call for candidates was ended: this has likely cut out other people
who may have been interested in the position but who could not afford to
apply.  The reality is that most people are simply not in a position to
work on a free-gratis basis for several years at a time.

If the NomCom follows through on the current trajectory, it will be
difficult to defend against claims that the selection process and the
resulting candidate were free from undue influence from the RIPE NCC.
This will compromise the process, and the RIPE chair, and will raise
questions about the RIPE Community's ability to govern itself.  This
would be unfortunate and unnecessary.

As Erik Bais noted in a separate email, no-one is suggesting blowing up
or restarting the nomcom or the process.  I think generally people
recognise and are sympathetic to the fact that this is a difficult,
awkward and delicate situation for all, and particularly for the
candidates.  And also that it's a situation where external factors
played a substantial part in forming.

For the moment, the process needs to be paused.

To move it forward:

1. if the positions of RIPE Chair and vice-Chair are to be paid, then
the details of this need to be clarified, and if possible finalised, as
soon as possible.  Given that this is a fundamental shift in the
position spec, there will either need to be a new call for applicants or
a pretty clear justification about why this is not possible.  As Gordon
Lennox noted, sunk costs are not an adequate explanation.

2. The nomcom needs to consider whether people who are currently or have
recently been working at the RIPE NCC at any level should be subject to
timeout / grace periods to protect both the candidates and the position
from suggestions of revolving doors.  There's plenty of precedent and
experience in this area of governance.

3. the RIPE community needs to understand whether the NomCom can
continue to assert that the process is independent of the RIPE NCC given
not just the individual impact of the issues raised, but also the
cumulative impact of these issues.

These are not easy questions to answer, or to remedy when they've been
answered.

Nick