[cooperation-wg] Status on co-chairs process?

Thanks for the clear summary Gordon,

Since there is only now a convergence of understanding about the process
and the impetus for its consideration, I would concur that we should set
clear deadlines. Outside of the session there was another person that
expressed interest, and I appreciate that there are people that are
travelling back from RIPE and will not be able to contribute by the
weekend.

So, attempting to speak outside of self-interest, I would suggest that we
set a deadline of Friday next week (June 3). Several of the candidates have
offered a vision of their involvements on this list, and I would also
suggest that others do as well, to ensure that the discussion is at least
informed by those positions rather than simply a reflection of activated
social networks. Additional, unless there is an unexpected issue requiring
consultation, the WG is typically dormant for the few weeks following RIPE,
and so there is not an immediate need outside of assurance that this is
settled within a reasonable period of time.

To add one more point of order to the agenda, I would mention that the
discussion period should include whether to elect 1 or 2 (or 39, I suppose)
additional co-chairs, but Meredith can structure that conversation.

I believe that would put the schedule
<https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/coop/cooperation-wg-chair-selection-process>
at:

June 3: Deadline for declaration of candidacy.
June 4: Start of discussion about requirements and candidate qualifications.
June 17: End of discussion.
June 18: Chair starts consideration of consensus.
July 1: Chair conveys consensus.


Is that correct? Does it seem fair to others?

Cordially,
Collin

On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 12:37 PM, Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Thanks again to Meredith for an interesting agenda this morning.
>
>
> The end though was slightly rushed and we ran quite late so it is good
> that that the discussion can continue on the list. We obviously did not
> have the time this topic required during the session.
>
>
> I think we now need two discussions: one about the WG itself and one about
> the co-chairs. They are linked. But the one about the WG is and will be
> ongoing. I will focus here on the co-chairs and in particular the process.
>
>
> I still think though that we should keep with published the process.
>
>
> This is where I think we are:
>
>
> * the chair requests candidates. Done.
>
> * there is a period of about two weeks when names can be put forward.
> On-going?
>
>
> I think though we are coming towards the end of that period. I think we
> ought to be a little bit flexible on when that period actually comes to and
> end given how the process kicked-off. But I presume that it will end this
> weekend?
>
>
> ** the chair then announces the final list of candidates.
>
> ** there is a another period of about two weeks when the WG can have a
> conversation about particular requirements and with the candidates.
>
> ** the chair announces the consensus.
>
>
> I see no need to rush this any faster.
>
>
> Do people agree?
>
>
> I would hope though that in the future we might stretch the time-scales a
> little - take the published time-lines as an indicative baseline rather
> than binding formal constraint - and take a more relaxed approach.
>
>
> Gordon
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/cooperation-wg/attachments/20160526/19187d8f/attachment.html>