[anti-abuse-wg] Appointment & Removal of Working Group Chairs

Dave,

Thanks for your commentary on this, much appreciated!
Dave Crocker wrote the following on 26/09/2014 14:42:
> On 9/26/2014 2:23 AM, Brian Nisbet wrote:
>> Tobias & I would like to present the text below as a starting point for
>> this discussion
>
> These are always fun exercises...

They are, but necessary ones, I think.

>
>> Note on Language: Throughout this document the word Chair shall be used
>> for both Chairs and Co-Chairs.
>>
>> ** Introduction:
>>
>> This document aims to provide outline procedures to deal with the tenure
>> of RIPE Working Group Chairs. It applies to all RIPE Working Groups.
>
>     This document outlines procedures dealing with the tenure...

I think I'm missing your point here?

>> ** WG Chair Term:
>>
>> The normal term for a WG Chair is three years, after which the WG Chair
>> must resign. A WG Chair may stand for re-selection after resignation. A
>> WG Chair may resign voluntarily at any time.
>
> As phrased, this means that there is a gap between resignation and
> filling the spot with the replacement chair.  And if the resignation is
> 'forced' it isn't really a resignation; it's just the end of their term.
>
> Perhaps:
>
>     The term of a WG Chair is three years.  A current chair may stand for
> re-selection at the end of their term.  A WG Chair may resign
> voluntarily at any time.

The "gap" should be no longer than a RIPE meeting and isn't really a big 
thing. The wording change, yup, I've no problem with that.

>> ** Selection of a WG Chair:
>>
>> WG Chair vacancies, along with a call for candidates, should be
>
>     should -> must
>
> Seems essential to make the minimum announcement time mandatory.

Ah, yes, this isn't an RFC, so language thing, perfectly happy with must.

>> announced on the WG mailing list at least one month in advance of the
>> date upon which the selection will be held. The announcement should set
>> a closing date for candidates. A WG may request that a WG Chair vacancy
>
>     a WG Chair vacancy -> an additional WG Chair position

Ok.

>
>> be opened so long as the addition of a new Chair would not cause the
>> number of Chairs of that WG to exceed the maximum number specified in
>> this document.
>
> I didn't see where that maximum was specified.

There's a reason I left out this line:

Reference Documents: Working Group Chair Job Description and Procedures 
(RIPE-542)

I've no idea what that reason was, mind, but I'm sure it exists. Anyway, 
RIPE-542 specifies a maximum of three.

>> WG Chairs are elected at WG sessions at RIPE meetings. Anyone physically
>> present at the WG session is eligible to participate in the selection
>> process.  The candidate does not need to be physically present at the WG
>> session.
>>
>> If possible the Chair should be elected by acclamation by the WG or by
>> consensus after discussion. If the result is unclear, then a secret
>> ballot should be held. In the case of a ballot, votes will be counted by
>> RIPE NCC Staff and/or Chairs of other WGs. The result will be determined
>> by simple majority.
>>
>> ** Removal of a WG Chair:
>>
>> A WG Chair may be unable to fulfil their duties as described in this
>> document or otherwise fail to serve the WG and the community. With the
>> endorsement of a significant share of the WG, a vote of no confidence
>> may be initiated.
>>
>> Before a vote of no confidence is taken, due effort should be made to
>> address the issue(s) leading to the vote. The right of reply must be
>> given to all parties involved in the procedure. If this effort fails to
>> resolve the issue, the vote may proceed.
>>
>> The vote must be requested on the WG mailing list at least one week in
>> advance of the WG Session at a RIPE meeting and should take place during
>> the WG session. Anyone physically present at the WG session may take
>
> This obviously allows a form of ballot-box stuffing, by permitting votes
> from people who have not been involved in the wg up to that point.  I
> have no idea how to prevent this, however.  In addition, it can be
> argued that anyone garnering enough ire to motivate the ballot-stuffing
> effort probably is causing serious problems.  The counter to that is
> that they might be standing up to efforts to coerce the wg...

It does, potentially, and this has been a bone of contention in other 
discussions. I have no idea how to prevent it either. Possibly more to 
the point I have no evidence to suggest it would or would not happen. 
Bussing in people at €350 a pop to remain co-chair of a RIPE WG would 
seem... frankly insane. That's not to say it'll never happen, of course, 
but wow.

There is, btw, the notion of popping in a consensus stage before the 
voting stage in a no-confidence motion. It doesn't remove the vote 
stuffing concern, of course, but it brings the whole thing more in line 
with preferred RIPE procedure.

Brian