[ipv6-wg] Discussion period for co-chair selection until 20100208

After reading their own introduction and knowing both candidates from several RIPE meetings, I give my support to both of them to be co-chairs. I think and odd number is good as break in discussions.


El 03/02/2010, a las 23:44, David Kessens escribió:

> 
> All,
> 
> The call for candidates for co-chairs of the IPv6 working group has
> resulted in two candidates. See below for their names and a link to the
> mailing list with their motivations and plans for the working group:
> 
> Shane Kerr 
> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/ipv6-wg/2010/msg00038.html
> 
> Marco Hogewoning
> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/ipv6-wg/2010/msg00041.html
> 
> This brings us to the next step in our process:
> 
>  1) The nominees are given a chance to determine whether they want to
>     be considered or withdraw as they decided that there are other
>     good candidates already available
> 
>  2) The community may express opinions that could help the
>     candidates to come to a decision on whether they want to
>     be continued to be considered as a candidate
>     - the community may consider appointing more than one co-chair
>       in case of several good candidates
> 
> Let's take until the end of Mon Feb 8, 2010 in a timezone of your
> choice to determine an outcome for both 1) and 2).
> 
> I already have seen some discussion regarding point 2) and it leads me
> to believe that there is at least some support to appoint both
> candidates as co-chairs.
> 
> Before making such a determination though, I would like to see a bit
> more discussion/comments, especially from people who have not taken a
> position yet on this topic.
> 
> Basically, knowing our candidates, I would like to hear from you
> whether you prefer to appoint one or two co-chairs, and whether you
> have any preference for either candidate in case you believe one
> co-chair is enough.
> 
> Note that this period is for open discussion and that it is perfectly
> fine to do alternate proposals. 
> 
> Our objective is to see if we can come to a consensus which allows us
> to avoid more complex ways of making a selection such as a vote.
> 
> After our discussion period is over, I will determine if there is
> enough basis to do a Last Call to confirm a selection decision as
> determined from our discussion phase, or whether we perhaps need a bit
> more time for discussion or that we will have to resort to organizing
> a vote.
> 
> I hope this helps,
> 
> David Kessens
> ---
> 

-- 
Tecnocom
Fernando García Fernández 
D.G. Integración de Redes y Sistemas 
Josefa Valcarcel, 26 Edificio Merrimack III 
Madrid - 28027 
Tel. Fijo: 901900900 ext 40383 
Fax: (+34) 914313240
Tel. Móvil: (+34) 649428591 
E-mail: fernando.garcia at tecnocom.es 
http://www.tecnocom.es