[address-policy-wg] WG chair re-selection procedure

On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 11:56 AM, Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 11:44:42AM +0200, Richard Hartmann wrote:

>> * Can you have three chairs?
>
> Yes.  We had in the past, but do not need three right now.  Need may
> arise, if the workload goes up again (but this is arguably unlikely).

Didn't know that; trivial to amend. As written the policy could be
interpreted to retain three chairs if no one wants to step down,
though.


>> * For how long can you have one chair if the other is hit by a bus?
>
> Well, "until the next meeting".

This is not specified in the Sander's and your text.


>> * How are new chairs bootstrapped in case both are hit by a bus?
>
> The *RIPE* chair would appoint someone.

This is not specified in the Sander's and your text.

> Note that we can not have the *NCC* appoint APWG chairs, as that would
> make the NCC take part in AP policy making, which it does not do.

Good point; agreed.


>> * Do chairs alternate in offering to step down?
>
> That was the idea.  I thought it was clear from the document, but maybe
> it wasn't carried over from the discussion.

It's not specified, no.


>> ** What if one chair is controversial and thus the other always is up
>> for re-election?
>> ** What if neither chair wants to step down?
>
> This is both not an option.  Chairs take turns in offering to step down,
> which is the whole point.

Again, that's not specified.


>> I tried to fix that (without reformatting to make diff'ing easier):
>
> You're trying to overengineer :-)
>
> We might want to add a few words about "if there are any unforeseen
> circumstances, the RIPE chair will find a suitable interim WG chair",
> and clarify the alternating step-down.  Besides that, I do not think
> we should be too specific about things.

I don't agree; as per definition, laws, contracts, regulations and the
like must offer clear guidance in case of disagreements. I'd rather
have something too specific while people agree than something too
unspecific when people disagree.



Richard