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

We would not be going back to a fait accompli. We would be making a
decision following a month and some weeks deliberation on the list.

However, the mode by which a decision gets made, process or no, is not
clear or determined. As co-chair, I expressed my preferences as they relate
to people I will be working and collaborating with. My preferences have not
changed. That's what I'm able to do. I am not able to divine the "will of
the group," nor is there a process drafted to do so.

I appreciate your continued participation and your drive toward clarity,
Gordon.

Thanks,
Meredith



On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I am confused. Maybe I am the only one?
>
> When it was announced that the new co-chairs were to be Collin and
> Achilleas I objected. I did not object to the two personalities. I simply
> did not agree with the WG being presented with a fait accompli without any
> prior discussion. I said this on the list. I suggested instead that the
> procedure as drafted by Meredith and published on the RIPE web-site be
> followed. There was support for that.
>
> The procedure was then followed and we now have several candidates for
> co-chair.
>
> There was also a positive exchange about the time-table. I thought the
> proposal by Collin was good. I do not remember any pushback.
>
> I am not aware of any contributions on the list which I would consider
> unproductive or hostile. Maybe things were said or written elsewhere which
> I was not party to. But I obviously cannot comment on that.
>
> I have seen Julf on the list. I have see Collin on the list. That is good.
> And of course I guess everybody appreciated Collin stepping in when
> Meredith was not available.
>
> I sympathise with the conflict Meredith feels between the demands of her
> day-job and the role of co-chair. I guess many of us have been in similar
> situations and so we know the hard decisions that then have to be taken.
>
> But to use that to go back to the fait accompli does not feel right. To
> ignore the process, to ignore the WG cannot be right.
>
> So where do we go from here?
>
> Gordon
>
>
> > On 11 Jul 2016, at 17:35, Meredith Whittaker <meredithrachel at google.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > 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
>
>
>


-- 
Meredith Whittaker
Open Research Lead
Google NYC
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/cooperation-wg/attachments/20160711/2f8c4fbe/attachment.html>