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

Hi Jim,

As I had previously mentioned, I was surprised to find that from the outset
(as in, from before even the close of the WG session), there had been a
decision made by more vocal members of the community. This had continued
prior to even the anticipated close of nominations, excluding even the
planned subsequent exchanges over issues and visions of the future of the
WG. I have been impressed with the comments on Corinne in this regard, and
would have rather she put in for nomination in retrospect. However, by now
the space has narrowed, and I don't anticipate that any productive
conversation will result from continuing or restarting.

I have been suprised about the positions and modes of intracommunity
interaction in this WG, which should otherwise run contrary to its
cooperative mandate – in particular some of the exchanges during the
meeting itself. My interest was simply in using the connections that I have
accumulated through my professional work and travels in order to bridge the
RIPE community with relevant and nascent partners that would otherwise be
unaware of the opportunities to collaborate with its members. I would be
happy to continue to support future WGs chairs in recommending partners,
but am no longer interested in the chair position as a result of the
politics involved.

Julf has a history of contributions in the field of privacy that I was
aware of even before I had the opportunity to meet him in the Amsterdam
meeting. I am happy to see that of all people he was willing to step up,
and I wish him the best in Coop WG.

Best of luck in this transition.

Cordially,
Collin

On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 3:06 PM, Jim Reid <jim at rfc1035.com> wrote:

>
> > On 11 Jul 2016, at 16:35, Meredith Whittaker <meredithrachel at google.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > So, what do you suggest?
>
> It’s not up to me (or anyone else) to say how you should run your WG
> Meredith. That’s for you and your WG co-chairs to decide in consultation
> with the WG.
>
> However given where we are, here’s what I would do if I was in your shoes.
>
> Just reset the co-chair appointment process and start again.
>
> Neither of the two suggested time-lines has been met. The WG is confused
> and uncertain how to proceed. The agreed process wasn’t followed and things
> have gone off the rails. The best thing for everyone now is to pretend that
> never happened and start from scratch once more. There’s no point
> apportioning blame or playing “he said, she said” about what happened since
> that would not help.
>
> I think the way to proceed would be for the WG Chair to announce on the
> mailing list that 1? 2? co-chairs need to be appointed and invite
> candidates to step forward or be nominated. The WG chair should not go
> beyond that by naming any personal preferences or “qualified candidates”.
> This is for the WG and the candidates to decide for themselves. Anyone who
> wants to be considered must also make that known on the list. Discussions
> then take place on the mailing list about suitability of these candidates
> and the WG hopefully converges on consensus. If/when a consensus emerges,
> the WG Chair makes a judgement about that and announces their decision on
> the list. This is pretty much what the agreed appointment process says.
>
> That agreed process allows 2 weeks for volunteers to come forward. Then
> there’s two weeks after that for the WG Chair(s) to announce on the list
> who the candidates are and invite the WG to express their approval or
> otherwise of the presented candidates. Two weeks after that the WG has
> hopefully arrived at consensus and the WG Chair(s) announces the result. If
> the process is followed, it should produce a happy outcome. Famous last
> words...
>
> Starting this process right now is probably unwise because this six-week
> long exercise would run until the end of August while most of Europe is on
> holiday. OTOH, starting things once the summer holidays are over means
> nobody could be appointed until mid-October at the earliest. So it may be
> an idea to first ask the WG if it wants to wait that long or get things
> under way sooner. This will determine when to open the floodgates for
> nominees.
>
> When that announcement is made on the list for interested parties, it
> would be helpful to clearly state the dates when “nominations” close, when
> the announcement of the candidates is due and when a final decision is
> expected from the WG. This should hopefully concentrate minds.
>
>
> hope this helps
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/cooperation-wg/attachments/20160712/4d1559b1/attachment.html>