RIPE WG Chairs Selection and Terms
Dear colleagues, I think we all agree that the overall goal is to have a good and diverse set of WG chairs and we want to work with all WGs to facilitate that. Following the recommendations from the Accountability Task Force, we've started looking at the chair selection criteria of all RIPE Working Groups. Currently most WGs have terms or regular calls for nominations defined as part of their selection criteria. We will continue this review. Kind regards, Mirjam
Mirjam, On 11/02/2021 13.54, Mirjam Kuehne wrote:
I think we all agree that the overall goal is to have a good and diverse set of WG chairs and we want to work with all WGs to facilitate that.
Following the recommendations from the Accountability Task Force, we've started looking at the chair selection criteria of all RIPE Working Groups. Currently most WGs have terms or regular calls for nominations defined as part of their selection criteria. We will continue this review.
Thanks for this. It's a bit wonky but I appreciate the review effort here. In the light of the discussion about chair selection and term limits, I thought that I would mention that the RIPE DNS working group already has these limits. We have 3 chairs, and each chair serves 3 years. Every year one of the positions is made available. With this system there is a chance every year for anyone interested in serving as a chair to put themselves forward. An existing chair may volunteer again at the end of their term, one time, so serving a total of 6 years. We started using this process 6 years ago, so this year we will have at least one new chair. Dave sent a good e-mail last year which documents a bit of the history, plus each individual chair's period: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/dns-wg/2020-October/003768.html Cheers, -- Shane
I'm prefer to find a solution without limits on terms. What we do in the Open Source WG is to make it clear that we could have 3 chairs, but are only 2 at this time. I hope this would encourage someone to step up without having to have an existing chair stepping down and make it easier for someone to step up (But we also try to make it clear that they could ask to replace an existing chair if they feel like an existing chair needs to be gone). (My assumption is that if we ever end up with 3 chairs then one of them would probably step down some time afterwards to make an "empty slot" available again, but this is not in any rules) So far, all our calls in the (shorter) history of the OS WG had nobody stepping up and show any interest to join or replace a chair. Martin On Feb 12 2021, at 11:14 am, Shane Kerr <shane@time-travellers.org> wrote:
Mirjam,
On 11/02/2021 13.54, Mirjam Kuehne wrote:
I think we all agree that the overall goal is to have a good and diverse set of WG chairs and we want to work with all WGs to facilitate that.
Following the recommendations from the Accountability Task Force, we've started looking at the chair selection criteria of all RIPE Working Groups. Currently most WGs have terms or regular calls for nominations defined as part of their selection criteria. We will continue this review.
Thanks for this. It's a bit wonky but I appreciate the review effort here. In the light of the discussion about chair selection and term limits, I thought that I would mention that the RIPE DNS working group already has these limits.
We have 3 chairs, and each chair serves 3 years. Every year one of the positions is made available.
With this system there is a chance every year for anyone interested in serving as a chair to put themselves forward.
An existing chair may volunteer again at the end of their term, one time, so serving a total of 6 years.
We started using this process 6 years ago, so this year we will have at least one new chair.
Dave sent a good e-mail last year which documents a bit of the history, plus each individual chair's period:
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/dns-wg/2020-October/003768.html Cheers, -- Shane
On 12 Feb 2021, at 11:26, Martin Winter <mwinter@netdef.org> wrote:
I'm prefer to find a solution without limits on terms.
IMO, there’s no one-size-fits-all solution to this issue. It’s unwise (and probably impossible) to try to create one. WGs should be left to decide for themselves what works best for them. Sometimes, that’ll mean term limits. Sometimes it won’t. Not all WGs are the same. And for a few of them, continuity will be far more important than other considerations. There should of course be a healthy replacement of WG leadership: enough to ensure things don’t get stale but not so much that continuity or institutional memory gets lost. That balance and those trade-offs will be different in each WG. Which is why each WG should get to decide how they handle this. Term limits in some WGs like DNS or IoT are fine IMO. For WGs like Coop or AA (say) who interact more with the authorities, not so much. We should also think very, very carefully before imposing policies top-down. RIPE, like most Internet institutions, has always used bottom-up policy development. It should stick with that model because it produces the best outcomes.
Hi, On Fri, 12 Feb 2021, Jim Reid wrote:
On 12 Feb 2021, at 11:26, Martin Winter <mwinter@netdef.org> wrote:
I'm prefer to find a solution without limits on terms.
IMO, there?s no one-size-fits-all solution to this issue. It?s unwise (and probably impossible) to try to create one.
WGs should be left to decide for themselves what works best for them. Sometimes, that?ll mean term limits. Sometimes it won?t.
I can understand that. However, that impacts the "WG Chair Collective".
Not all WGs are the same. And for a few of them, continuity will be far more important than other considerations.
I have recently been told about the "a team of one" concept...
There should of course be a healthy replacement of WG leadership: enough to ensure things don?t get stale
Depends on "things". In some cases stale is certainly a "feature".
but not so much that continuity or institutional memory gets lost. That balance and those trade-offs will be different in each WG. Which is why each WG should get to decide how they handle this.
Not everybody plays by "knowing when to step down"...
Term limits in some WGs like DNS or IoT are fine IMO. For WGs like Coop or AA (say) who interact more with the authorities, not so much.
Disagree.
We should also think very, very carefully before imposing policies top-down. RIPE, like most Internet institutions, has always used bottom-up policy development. It should stick with that model because it produces the best outcomes.
I thought RIPE is/was a Community. RIPE NCC is an (not for profit, formal) Internet institution. Cheers, Carlos
On 12 Feb 2021, at 13:54, Carlos Friaças <cfriacas@fccn.pt> wrote:
WGs should be left to decide for themselves what works best for them. Sometimes, that?ll mean term limits. Sometimes it won?t.
I can understand that. However, that impacts the "WG Chair Collective”.
[Citation needed.] AFAICT most of the WGCC have been there for < 5-6 years. Off the top of my head only 4 or 5 out of 25+ have been around for over 10 years. That doesn’t seem all that stale to me. Not that the WGCC does anything particularly useful or influential. If you can bear the tedium, read the minutes of their meetings.
Not all WGs are the same. And for a few of them, continuity will be far more important than other considerations.
I have recently been told about the "a team of one" concept...
[Citation needed.] What has the WG(s) in question said or done about that?
There should of course be a healthy replacement of WG leadership: enough to ensure things don?t get stale
Depends on "things". In some cases stale is certainly a "feature".
[Citation needed.] What have you or the rest of the WG done about that? Has the WG put forward new candidates? Did you or others who share your view volunteer?
Not everybody plays by "knowing when to step down"...
[Citation needed.] Have you ever suggested to someone they've been around for too long and should step down? What was their response? Did you have those conversations with the WG’s other co-chairs (or the RIPE Chair)? What was their response? Saying "Not everybody plays by knowing when to step down” is all very well. It would help a lot if could you please cite actual examples instead of vague perceptions. Let’s have a clear understanding of the problem statement before deciding the solutions.
Hi, (last msg for today) On Fri, 12 Feb 2021, Jim Reid wrote: (...)
I have recently been told about the "a team of one" concept...
[Citation needed.] What has the WG(s) in question said or done about that?
Different context, not RIPE or RIPE NCC related. But theoretically, if the WG is only the Chair(s), it's still a WG.
There should of course be a healthy replacement of WG leadership: enough to ensure things don?t get stale
Depends on "things". In some cases stale is certainly a "feature".
[Citation needed.] What have you or the rest of the WG done about that? Has the WG put forward new candidates? Did you or others who share your view volunteer?
If i understand the Chair role correctly, the Chair steers the WG, and maintains a neutral position. At least that's what i've seen from most of the RIPE WG Chairs over the years.
Not everybody plays by "knowing when to step down"...
[Citation needed.] Have you ever suggested to someone they've been around for too long and should step down? What was their response? Did you have those conversations with the WG?s other co-chairs (or the RIPE Chair)? What was their response?
No.
Saying "Not everybody plays by knowing when to step down? is all very well. It would help a lot if could you please cite actual examples instead of vague perceptions.
For me, it's not a vague perception, it's a fact. The sentence starts with "Not everybody". But you also get the other way around: the person thinks it's time to step down, and people around him/her think otherwise.
Let?s have a clear understanding of the problem statement before deciding the solutions.
Ahhhh, again, it loops onto "There's no problem statement!". Can you share the full flowchart? :) Regards, Carlos
Problem Statement: RIPE PDP follows a consensus bottom-up approach. The consensus is judged by WG chairs, and in case of discrepancies, there is an appeal process via the WGCC. However, each WG has a different way to choose the WG chairs, despite that this has a clear influence in the PDP and Appeal process and it doesn't make sense that different WG's contributing to the PDP have different behavior. Further to that, the PDP doesn't have a direct relation with selection of the WG chairs, which again, doesn't look as a rational approach and generates inconsistencies. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 12/2/21 16:43, "ripe-list en nombre de Jim Reid" <ripe-list-bounces@ripe.net en nombre de jim@rfc1035.com> escribió: > On 12 Feb 2021, at 13:54, Carlos Friaças <cfriacas@fccn.pt> wrote: > >> WGs should be left to decide for themselves what works best for them. Sometimes, that?ll mean term limits. Sometimes it won?t. > > I can understand that. However, that impacts the "WG Chair Collective”. [Citation needed.] AFAICT most of the WGCC have been there for < 5-6 years. Off the top of my head only 4 or 5 out of 25+ have been around for over 10 years. That doesn’t seem all that stale to me. Not that the WGCC does anything particularly useful or influential. If you can bear the tedium, read the minutes of their meetings. >> Not all WGs are the same. And for a few of them, continuity will be far more important than other considerations. > > I have recently been told about the "a team of one" concept... [Citation needed.] What has the WG(s) in question said or done about that? >> There should of course be a healthy replacement of WG leadership: enough to ensure things don?t get stale > > Depends on "things". In some cases stale is certainly a "feature". [Citation needed.] What have you or the rest of the WG done about that? Has the WG put forward new candidates? Did you or others who share your view volunteer? > Not everybody plays by "knowing when to step down"... [Citation needed.] Have you ever suggested to someone they've been around for too long and should step down? What was their response? Did you have those conversations with the WG’s other co-chairs (or the RIPE Chair)? What was their response? Saying "Not everybody plays by knowing when to step down” is all very well. It would help a lot if could you please cite actual examples instead of vague perceptions. Let’s have a clear understanding of the problem statement before deciding the solutions. ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
jordi, in this region, as opposed to the other regions, the community and the bureaucracy are sorta separate, ripe and the ncc. the community is composed of us funny monkeys. there will be inconsistencies. it's a feature, not a bug. get over it. randy
Hi Randy, I don't agree with this rationale, as in all the other RIRs is the same. The ONLY difference is that here we have an explicit different name for the organization (RIPE NCC) and the community (RIPE). But this is the same in *all* the other RIRs. In fact, the "lack" of a different name sometimes create confusions in other RIRs. Sometimes I need to say "LACNIC organization" and "LANIC community" explicitly to differentiate both. You can replace LACNIC here by APNIC, AFRINIC or ARIN (even if in this case it is a bit different because historical reasons, AC instead of co-chairs, etc.). Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 12/2/21 17:43, "ripe-list en nombre de Randy Bush" <ripe-list-bounces@ripe.net en nombre de randy@psg.com> escribió: jordi, in this region, as opposed to the other regions, the community and the bureaucracy are sorta separate, ripe and the ncc. the community is composed of us funny monkeys. there will be inconsistencies. it's a feature, not a bug. get over it. randy ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
I don't agree with this rationale, as in all the other RIRs is the same. The ONLY difference is that here we have an explicit different name for the organization (RIPE NCC) and the community (RIPE).
this is why there are multiple rirs; so they can be different to meet different cultural needs. it also explains why you hit the most trougle in this region in your attempts to make them all the same. randy
Hi, On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 05:39:28PM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list wrote:
Problem Statement:
RIPE PDP follows a consensus bottom-up approach. The consensus is judged by WG chairs, and in case of discrepancies, there is an appeal process via the WGCC.
However, each WG has a different way to choose the WG chairs, despite that this has a clear influence in the PDP and Appeal process and it doesn't make sense that different WG's contributing to the PDP have different behavior.
Since the appeals process has been invoked only *once* in the lifetime of the PDP, with many proposals succeeding, and many others being withdrawn, it seems that this is not the most crucial point of the PDP.
Further to that, the PDP doesn't have a direct relation with selection of the WG chairs, which again, doesn't look as a rational approach and generates inconsistencies.
The PDP is a tool to organize ourselves *regarding policy making*, not the all-governing entity of the RIPE community. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
participants (8)
-
Carlos Friaças -
Gert Doering -
Jim Reid -
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ -
Martin Winter -
Mirjam Kuehne -
Randy Bush -
Shane Kerr