<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">Hi Jim, all,<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">Fully agree that we should adopt an existing one (that's what we did for ipv6-wg.) I struggle with the "draw lots" clause though; I think when there are multiple remaining candidates, the WG ought to express a preference.<br class=""></blockquote><br class="">Well that’s what’s supposed to happen Anna. The WG reaches consensus on their preferred candidate. But suppose it doesn’t or can't. Then what?<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>Then we follow the three sentences beginning with the words "If the result is unclear."</div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="">IMO a “draw lots” thing is the simplest and most convenient way to resolve matters when a selection by consensus is unclear or isn’t possible: for instance, when support for two or more candidates is pretty much equal. A random selection mechanism like drawing lots provides a very pragmatic way to break those sort of deadlocks. Other ways to resolve a tie are of course possible. However they are likely to end up in a monument to process. And probably less robust/effective too.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>Here's the text (already in use by ipv6-wg):</div><div><br class=""></div><div><div>"If possible the Chair should be elected by acclamation by the WG or by consensus after discussion. If the result is unclear, then a secret ballot should be held. In the case of a ballot, votes will be counted by RIPE NCC Staff and/or Chairs of other WGs. The result will be determined by simple majority."</div><div><br class=""></div><div>We've had ballots lots of times for the ASO AC elections. I even went through that process as a candidate myself. I disagree strongly with the characterisation of this as a monument to process.</div><div><br class=""></div></div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="">Besides, if the names of the tied candidates all go into a hat, those who wish to shed-paint can get to debate who holds the hat, how big it is, what it’s made from, etc, etc. :-)</div></div></blockquote></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><div>I do think it's crucial that the WG should try to get to the point of consensus, and everyone who wants to participate in that should be able to.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>What I feel most strongly about is that, when consensus hasn't been reached, and we're at the point where we have to make a decision in the room – there must be a secret ballot. Without a secret ballot, the constituency is effectively those who are willing to speak at the mic. This is ok when deciding about policy. I think it's not ok when deciding about people.</div></div><div class=""><div><div><br class=""></div><div>All the best,</div><div>Anna</div></div></div><br class=""><div class=""> <div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;">-- <br class="">Anna Wilson<br class="">Service Desk Manager<br class="">HEAnet CLG, Ireland’s National Education and Research Network<br class="">1st Floor, 5 George’s Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland<br class="">+353 (0)1 6609040 <a href="mailto:anna.wilson@heanet.ie" class="">anna.wilson@heanet.ie</a> <a href="http://www.heanet.ie" class="">www.heanet.ie</a><br class="">Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270</div> </div> <br class=""></div></body></html>