[iot-wg] consensus v voting at RIPE

On 15 Oct 2018, at 10:58, Taras Heichenko <tasic at hostmaster.ua> wrote:
> 
> I understand that this is one of the RIPE WG. But do we really MUST use consensus to select co-chair?

Nobody's suggested any other way of appointing the co-chairs of this WG. We appear to have reasonable support for the proposed procedure. Nobody's objected to it either. So on balance, I'd say yes, we must use consensus to select the co-chair(s).

If you want to propose some other selection mechanism, feel free to circulate that and convince the WG your alternative would be better (for some definition of better) than what's already been proposed and seems to be generally acceptable. Please inform this list by the end of this week if you intend to do bring forward an alternative.

We can't allow the WG to limp along without a selection procedure for much longer. This is now verging on the intolerable. And I *really* want another co-chair to share the load of running the WG.

> Is there any document that defines such co-chair selection?

No. There are documents which define that. Each WG decides its own selection method. They have all independently chosen to use consensus.

> I see voting as more clear and effective procedure.

Voting only makes sense when it's clear who gets to vote. That doesn't make sense at RIPE because there's no definition (or notion) of membership.

> What should be done if WG has a member that disagree with any candidate (except him/her for example :) )?

The same as what happens when someone doesn't vote for a candidate they don't like.

Consensus does not imply or require unanimity. The IETF has an RFC which explains consensus. Please read it. Although that document relates to IETF decision making, many of its ideas and principles apply at other fora such as RIPE that use consensus. 

I now repeat for the FINAL time. Further discussion of RIPE decision making and whether consensus is or isn't appropriate for that is out of scope for this list. Take that discussion somewhere else. This does not prevent you or anyone else suggesting another mechanism for appointing the co-chair of the IoT WG on this list.