[cooperation-wg] Cooperation WG Chair Selection Process - candidates and launch of the discussion

All,

I like what Peter writes below. Both candidates are good. I know both. And I am happy I am not one that have to make the selection :-)

Ultimately it is all up to time and commitment. I know since I was co-chair for this WG (and other WGs and initiatives) that the chairs must be active, must set up meetings, and clear discussion items. Then when the ball gets rolling, they must direct the discussion, and shepherd the flock in an effective way so that the outcome is helpful for the community, for the participants, or whoever.

And yes, its not EU, or even Europe. The RIPE Region is broader.

Both candidates have experience with this, as the two current co-chairs.

I am explicitly not diving into the mailing list records to look for how active the candidates, the current co-chairs, or other participants on this mailing list have been, but I think I know what the findings will be... Almost silent, then burst of messages, followed by silence. :-)

What I think the co-chairs and the candidates can think about, and discuss, is how to manage to get this WG to do good stuff. That helps Marco and others (many of us) that do work within the charter of this WG. That discussion among smaller team might lead to the final good selection of whoever the co-chairs will be in the future.

Good luck! To all of us ;-)

   Patrik

On 5 Jan 2021, at 16:49, Peter Koch wrote:

> Dear all,
>
>> Anyway, January 5 is approaching quickly, and Achilleas and I are facing the
>> prospect of having to pick one of the co-chair candidates without much input
>> from the WG members.
>
> both candidates are perfectly qualified and even though (or maybe: because)
> their track records differ, either one would be a good choice - and the mix even better.  Therefore, I'll not express a preference and I'm not even convinced that we need to make that call.  One doesn't have to be a chair to get the ball rolling and with that I'd suggest we take advantage of both Des' and Dick's contributions to the discussion to
>
> a) schedule a virtual interim for, say, some time Feb
> b) develop a work plan for 'raising our voices'
> c) start/continue discussion on this list
>
> From my pov, we could have a 5-10 headed program committee, if that helps (the wg chairs collective puts a ceiling on the number of rep's - but that's a totally different governance issue).
>
> The end of the year brought us intersting suggestions from Brussels(*) and elsewhere and - as was already mentioned - the technical community's recognition is challenged, so let's get together.
>
> (*) Europe is larger and wider than the EU and the RIPE community is even    more global, indeed.  I'm suggesting focus, not foreclosure. In the
>     end, everybody will be faced with bright ideas.
>
> -Peter
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 260 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/cooperation-wg/attachments/20210105/c8b3e598/attachment.sig>