[ipv6-wg] working group co-chair(s)

David,

I'd like to agree with João here.  I worry that putting such a framework 
in place may mean that we reach the next meeting with most of a process 
but no co-chair, whereas it would be much better to have a co-chair in 
place to progress the work of the IPv6 WG.  I firmly believe that this 
will benefit the WG and the RIPE community more, certainly between now 
and Prague and I think in the longterm, than putting that energy towards 
the process.

Brian.

"João Damas" wrote the followingon 14/01/2010 10:35:
> David,
> I find the goals laudable and support them. I would however propose a different workflow.
> 
> The rationale behind the suggestion below takes into account the following points:
> - The IPv6 could use some fresh air now rather than later. This is not to say that you have not been doing a good job, I think you have, rather that sometimes a new point of view adds to the outcome and the additional resources generally yield additional results.
> - the process development you describe can take some time and would be applicable not only for the IPv6 wg but to all other wgs as well. So perhaps a broader group than just the IPv6 wg would be a better choice of venue. I will leave initial suggestions for that choice to Rob Blokzijl as RIPE Chair.
> 
> so, with the above in mind, I would suggest
> a) getting a new co-chair onboard now using the current informal process, by the people in this wg mailing list, with anyone who wants to volunteer sending their expression of interest to the list followed by expressions of support.
> 
> b) once the process you propose in your message has been developed and eventually accepted, all wg chairs, and possibly the RIPE Chair as well, go through it and renew or not, as the case maybe, their roles.
> 
> Joao
> 
> 
> On 14 Jan 2010, at 06:30, David Kessens wrote:
> 
>> All,
>>
>> During the charter discussion, some of you suggested to appoint a
>> co-chair.
>>
>> Most RIPE working groups have more than one chair person. In the past,
>> I have never felt the necessity to do this job with more than one
>> person. However, in the spirit that it is always good to try something
>> new or different, we can certainly add a co-chair if the working group
>> believes this to be beneficial for achieving our goals.
>>
>> Considering that we don't have any formal process for appointing a
>> working group chair, there is no standard on how this is achieved in a
>> transparent and fair way. This might have been acceptable in the
>> early days of RIPE when there were far fewer people involved and
>> governments weren't watching us.
>>
>> Given that there is an interest in appointing an additional cochair,
>> this seems an excellent opportunity to achieve something more than
>> just appointing a co-chair: if we define an open process and are happy
>> with the results, we can propose the process as a RIPE policy proposal
>> to the wider community for the appointment of chair people within
>> RIPE.
>>
>> At the same time, I don't believe we should overregulate and loose one
>> of the key benefits of our loosely organized community. Therefore, my
>> personal preference would be to formulate a set of principles that we
>> need to follow to appoint chair people while the actual implementation
>> can vary depending on the position that needs to be filled.
>>
>> I would first like to hear what people think about this. If there is
>> support, I would like to form a small task force to write a first
>> version of the principles and how we plan to implement them in the
>> ipv6 working group.
>>
>> David Kessens
>> ---
>>
> 
>