This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[dns-wg] proposal for appointment/removal of WG co-chairs
- Previous message (by thread): [dns-wg] proposal for appointment/removal of WG co-chairs
- Next message (by thread): [dns-wg] proposal for appointment/removal of WG co-chairs
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
João Damas
joao at bondis.org
Wed Oct 8 12:05:41 CEST 2014
I like simplicity that works so, in general, the proposal looks good to me. A few questions though: On 08 Oct 2014, at 11:43, Jim Reid <jim at rfc1035.com> wrote: > > Comments welcome. > > # > # $Id: appointment,v 1.6 2014/10/06 11:46:56 jim Exp $ > # > [1] The DNS WG will have N co-chairs. N will normally be 2 or 3, as > determined by the WG. > Can we at least pick a default value, e.g. 3 as it is now, since it seems to work. > [2] A co-chair will serve a term of N years, where N is the number > of co-chairs. Terms will be staggered so that one term expires every > year. A co-chair cannot serve more than 2 consecutive terms. > > [3] The WG will be given adequate notice that a co-chair's term is > ending and to invite applications for that position. Anyone can > volunteer for appointment. > > [4] At the end of a co-chair's term, the WG will decide by consensus > who is appointed to the available co-chair position. In the event of a > tie, the consensus tied candidates will draw lots. Please define tie in the context of a consensus process. Sounds like one of these simple-to-say/hard-to-do-right things. What would be wrong with a simple vote? sounds simpler. > > [5] The WG may decide by consensus to remove a WG co-chair at any time. > > [6] Consensus will be determined on the DNS WG mailing list. The consensus > judgement will be made by the serving WG co-chair(s) and will exclude the > co-chair who is the subject of that consensus judgement. > > [7] Any appeal over a consensus decision will be heard by the RIPE Chair > (or their deputy) whose decision shall be final. In closing, would the current co-chairs stay in place, initiate a rotation right away, or all clear the deck (ala IPv6 wg)? Thanks for this, Joao -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 203 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: </ripe/mail/archives/dns-wg/attachments/20141008/c3b236b1/attachment.sig>
- Previous message (by thread): [dns-wg] proposal for appointment/removal of WG co-chairs
- Next message (by thread): [dns-wg] proposal for appointment/removal of WG co-chairs
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ dns-wg Archives ]