[cooperation-wg] time-lines for co-chair appointments

Hello,

First, thank you all for being patient with my lack of response. I have
been extremely busy, and have put aside replying to any email that is not
mission critical because my day job required it. As I made clear at the
meeting and on the list multiple times, this is one of the reasons that I
pushed for a swift appointment/anointment of co-chairs. *The Coop WG work
is simply not something I can do on my own, especially not right now. *

Secondly, *I do not know what the revised schedule for selecting co-chairs
is. *This, I think, is a critical point.

Timeline: I proposed a schedule before RIPE72, and received pushback at the
meeting and on the list. Collin proposed a revised schedule at the meeting,
and received pushback. All of this referring to vague protocol, but none
willing to follow written protocol (see, my proposal before RIPE72) when it
pushes against some or another desired outcome. Here is revealed an uneasy
norm on the list, in which the Chairs and others can suggest what they
will, but have no authority to actually move forward with one or another
suggestion. The membership of the list, on the other hand, has no
responsibility but to declare dissatisfaction. The tone this sets is both
unproductive and, frankly, hostile. Corinne summarized this beautifully in
a past email. Combine this with the fact that chairing the group is a
volunteer position, and we have a situation in which, frankly, busy people
with day jobs put dealing with mailing list vagueness and hostility toward
the bottom of their list.

So, what do you suggest?* Were I to move forward, I would very quickly
select Achilles and Collin as co-chairs. *They are both active, helpful,
and have shown themselves to be directly engaged in issues central to the
Coop WG.

However, I expect resistance to these selections. Following such
resistance, I have no clarity on what happens, or what others suppose
should happen.

Best,
Meredith

On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Jim Reid <jim at rfc1035.com> wrote:

> Replying to myself, eh?
>
>
> Meredith, a month has passed since I posted the message below to the list.
> You haven’t replied. There hasn’t even been an acknowledgement or an “I’m
> busy and will get back to you/the WG in a few days”. Could you please
> answer the questions I posted?
>
> As far as question [2] goes, the WG now needs a revised schedule for
> co-chair appointment(s). Nothing has happened. We’ve gone beyond the end
> points that were in the appointment proposals made by yourself and Collin.
> Since neither of them has been followed, the WG needs to know and agree a
> time-line for choosing another co-chair (or two). It would be nice to get
> an update from you on what the next steps are and when they can be expected
> to happen.
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> > On 12 Jun 2016, at 17:45, Jim Reid <jim at rfc1035.com> wrote:
> >
> > Meredith, I think there’s confusion and uncertainty about the
> (provisional) schedule for selecting the WG co-chair(s). Well, at least I’m
> confused and uncertain about what’s meant to be happening. :-)
> >
> > Could you please clarify matters?
> >
> > I have three questions:
> >
> > [1] Is the WG to appoint one or two co-chairs alongside yourself?
> >
> > [2] When is a consensus judgement to be made about who gets appointed?
> You said in Copenhagen and on the list that this would be done within a
> week or so: ie by now. Collin proposed a revised schedule. But it doesn’t
> appear to have had much support from the WG. So it’s not clear (at least
> not to me) if we’re following that time-line or the earlier one you
> suggested  during the last RIPE meeting.
> >
> > [3] Is the WG expected to reach consensus on Co-chair
> criteria/requirements before or after the appointment of additional
> co-chair(s)? If it’s the former, what’s the time-line for the WG to agree
> those criteria?
> >
> > It might be helpful to open up discrete threads on the list for each
> answer and have a clear proposal for each that the WG comment on. For
> instance, “I think the WG should appoint N co-chairs. WG, please say on the
> list by $date whether you agree with that or not. Silence implies consent.”.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>


-- 
Meredith Whittaker
Open Research Lead
Google NYC
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/cooperation-wg/attachments/20160711/2e1e0224/attachment.html>