[dns-wg] yet another heave on the WG Chair selection procedure

Happy new year everyone.

The list has been silent about the draft selection procedure. This means it's not possible to decide if there's a consensus or not so we can declare victory and move on. Sigh. Could I ask you all to review the proposal and comment on the list?

One sticking point appears to be the "A co-chair cannot serve more than 2 consecutive terms." provision in [2]. Someone commented at the mike at RIPE69 that this was a good thing. One of your co-chairs says the opposite. Everyone else has not commented one way or the other. Result: stalemate.

WGs are supposed to have adopted a selection process by now and have it up and running in good time for RIPE70. Our WG is lagging behind the others. So, could we please have some comments on the proposed procedure and try to get the WG to converge on a consensus? Thanks.

It would be appreciated if people gave clear statements of support or objection. In the latter case, please explain why and suggest alternate text. Simply saying "I disagree" will not be constructive. Though it would of course help with the consensus determination.

Here's the suggested process again:

#
#       $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. 

[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.

[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.