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

Andy,

On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 04:46:02PM +0000, Andy Davidson wrote:
> 
> As I understand it, the selection of a WG chair and associated
> decisions (like, how many chairs to have) is deliberately left to the
> working group, so that at any given time, the community is free to
> select the organisational structure that best reflects the work they
> want to do at that time.

I agree. I would like to write this down and I think you just did a
great job in doing so.

> I suggest that :
>
>  - If this is not the view of the community as a whole, then, in any
> case, this working group is not the place to discuss far-reaching
> community structure policy !

My goal is foremost to define how we want to approach the working
group chair selection process in the ipv6 wg. I deliberately want to
hear how we are supposed to do this from our community as opposed to
me just proposing yet another ad-hoc process that is based on how we
did it in the past or some other random working group.

After that, I would like to bring up the same topic for RIPE as a
whole as I believe it would be a waste to repeat this excersize over
and over again (this would obviously not be a topic for the ipv6
working group alone). Note that I mentioned in my first mail, that I
believe that it is useful to write down the principles, but that the
actual implementation could be different as long as we follow certain
minimum standards of openness and transparency.

> - If there is consensus to appoint a co-chair, we should ask interested parties to inform the current chair.  
>   If there is one interested party, and the community agree consensus to proceed, then we have a new co-chair.  
>   Where there are several people wishing to stand and no community consensus to proceed with one, we may wish to hold an election _in this instance_ to select our new chair.  
>
> This is broadly what I recall the process was when I stood for eix-wg co-chair.

I personally like several aspects of how the eix working group
approached this and I am certainly interested to duplicate this (and
write it down).

David Kessens
---