[address-policy-wg] Working group chair selection process

Hi,

>> Once a year one of the chairs will step down, allowing new candidates the opportunity to become chair. The chairs take turns stepping down, and this is announced to the working group mailing list at least one month before the start of a RIPE meeting.
> 
> Wording should probably be "longest serving chair steps down" rather
> than "taking turns"

Nope. That would mean that Gert would step down first, and then when he stays as chair he'll be the one stepping down next time again etc. If we want to be specific then we'd have to say something like "the chair whose current serving term is the longest" or something like that in better English.

> What happens the year after two chairs are elected?

If we specify "longest" then that will be even more difficult as they will have been there equally long :)

>> The working group will select new chair(s) at the RIPE Address Policy Working Group session. Those present at the session, either in person or remotely, will determine by consensus among themselves who takes the available position(s). The remaining chair will determine whether consensus has been reached. If the working group finds itself without a chair the RIPE chair will determine consensus.
> 
> For the avoidance of accusations of bias it might be better to appoint
> a member of the arbitration panel to fulfil this role in all cases?

It's not the chair making a decision. It's the WG that does that and the chair will only determine consensus. He will be announcing consensus in front of the room so if he makes a bad call I'm sure it will be pointed out to him/her :)  Which would mean no consensus, which would mean a ballot. I really don't feel we should make this more difficult (but open to feedback from the WG of course! :) and we should do this in such a way that as little WG session time as reasonably possible is taken up by this process.

>> If no consensus can be reached then a secret ballot to elect the new chair(s) will be held at the working group session. Everyone physically present at the session can participate in the secret ballot. Votes will be counted by RIPE NCC Staff, and the result will be determined using proportional representation through the single transferable vote, otherwise known as PR-STV. The winner(s) of the secret ballot will become the new chair(s).
> 
> It's good practise to include the counting method used (just to stop
> any arguments)

I'm not sure what you're asking here...

>> # Running for chairperson
>> 
>> Anybody is allowed to volunteer for a vacant chair position, including former chairs.
>> 
>> Those who volunteer to chair the RIPE Address Policy Working Group should be aware of the responsibilities and work this involves. A description of the responsibilities of a RIPE working group chair can be found in "Working Group Chair Job Description and Procedures" (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-542).
> 
> How does one step forward as a potential chair? Doesn't there need to
> be a hint of the process?

Good catch! Yes: I suggest volunteers must make themselves known and introduce themselves on the mailing list.

>> # Removing a chairperson
>> 
>> When a significant number of participants in the working group are unsatisfied with a particular chair, and this cannot be resolved by discussion within the working group, they can call for a vote of no confidence. The vote must be requested on the mailing list at least one week before a RIPE meeting. The vote will be resolved using a secret ballot, which will be held at the working group session. Everyone physically present at the meeting can participate. The votes will be counted by RIPE NCC Staff and the result is determined by simple majority. If the vote is passed the chair who is the subject of the vote will step down immediately.
> 
> This should then clarify what happens next. See previous comment about
> the "nomination" process
> 
> Whats the process where both chairs are objected too?

Good point. The WG would be without chairs until the next RIPE meeting. I guess the best solution in this case would be if the WG appoints an interim chair until then.

> Shouldn't the first selection be for both chair positions to cement
> their "validity" as chairs

No, that is also one of the reasons that chairs should take turns stepping down. Running APWG is not an easy task and (potentially) replacing both chairs at the same time should be avoided whenever possible. During the discussions on chair rotation we have also had enough feedback that the working group is ok with us chairing it for now (we explicitly asked, we don't want to be chairs when we don't have the WG's support) so I see no reason to risk the stability of the WG. If we just take turns stepping down then one will step down in May 2015 and the other one in ±May 2016 so we can transfer the responsibilities to a new team of chairs in that period should that be the outcome of the rotation process.

> /me wanders off into a corner

Don't forget to grab some popcorn on the way ;)

I'll post an updated text to fix the obvious bugs at the end of today.

Cheers!
Sander