[cooperation-wg] Chairs of this wg

Hello dear friends!

Let's parse this out. The necessary but not sufficient conditions for any
candidate are, roughly

   1. They can afford to come to RIPE;
   2. They are willing to come to RIPE;
   3. They have enthusiasm and relevant expertise on issues important to
   the RIPE community.

We have three people (and maybe more -- speak up!) who meet this criteria.

Beyond this, there are many things that *could* make a great candidate. But
unless we can manifest a human out of mud and thin air, we may have to
accept a candidate that doesn't embody all of the qualities on various
stakeholders' wish lists.

Keeping with the discussion of practical reality, I currently have a very
demanding job, and increasingly limited time. I care about RIPE and I'm not
comfortable being the single point of failure for a WG whose role is so
important to the RIPE community. In other words, I need co-chair. Full
stop.

Given this, I think a productive direction for this discussion would go
something like this:

   1. *Openly and kindly ask the current candidates questions*, helping
   those on the list understand their qualifications more deeply, and assess
   their abilities and interests.
   2. If you have a good lead, *provide concrete suggestions for other
   candidates*.
   3. And, of course, *if the process doesn't sit right, speak up with
   concrete suggestions on how it can be changed*. The current process was
   written by me. It uses language the way I use it. It's almost certainly
   imperfect (appointment, election, choice -- whichever word you want!). I'm
   more than happy to discuss this.

Thanks,
Meredith


On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 12:37 PM, Jim Reid <jim at rfc1035.com> wrote:

>
> > On 24 May 2016, at 11:08, Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se> wrote:
> >
> > I have been following the discussion about the appointment of chair (I
> am nervous over use of the word "election") of this WG and think about what
> features I would like to see on a new chair.
>
> I share these concerns and fully support the points you've raised Patrik.
>
> Any talk of elections rather than consensus decisions in a RIPE context
> gives me the heebie jeebies. These get worse when it's those in leadership
> positions who talk about elections.
>
> The co-chair candidates that have emerged to date do not appear to have
> deep roots in the RIPE community. Although all three are familiar with
> Internet goverance matters in general, they're somewhat detached from the
> policy development and Internet governance issues in the RIPE region. This
> is troubling. As a result, I'm reluctant to support any of them.
>
> It would be good for the WG to discuss the requirements and criteria for
> the new co-chair. I hope we can have that discussion when the WG meets this
> week. Once there's consensus in the WG on these requirements and criteria,
> it should be easier to decide which candidate(s) would be the best choice.
> This may mean the appointment of a co-chair can't be done in Copenhagen and
> will need to be delayed.
>
>
>


-- 
Meredith Whittaker
Open Research Lead
Google NYC
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/cooperation-wg/attachments/20160524/7b6267d5/attachment.html>