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

Hi Collin,

Thank you for your concrete suggestions.

In my view, this schedule is productive and fair, and has the benefit of
providing more space for discussion and consideration from the community.

If I don't hear any pushback from community members, I will progress by
adhering to this schedule.

Best,
Meredith

On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 1:06 PM, Collin Anderson <collin at measurementlab.net>
wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>


-- 
Meredith Whittaker
Open Research Lead
Google NYC
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/cooperation-wg/attachments/20160526/f6724957/attachment.html>