[ripe-chair-discuss] RIPE Chair appointment procedure, some ideas

> On 16 Nov 2016, at 02:31, Peter Koch <pk at DENIC.DE> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 01:45:19AM +0000, Jim Reid wrote:
>> 
>> Please don't talk about "elections" in this specific context. We have to decide on the *selection* process first. An election is just one of many possibilities of selecting the candidate(s). Until we have consensus that election is the way to proceed -- and I hope we never converge on that option -- it is inappropriate to talk about electing the RIPE (Vice) Chair.
> 
> Amen. We vote and elect all the time, just that some people insist
> calling this 'consensus building'.  That said, when someone suggests a
> procedure for determining the chair and that includes an election, I'm
> missing the basis on which to declare the wording 'inappropriate'.

When we talk of "election" before deciding that this is the way to go, it unfairly biases the discussion in that direction. It creates a mindset/environment which excludes other possibilities or discourages people from suggesting them.

> Eligibility (mind the etymilogical proximity to 'election') criteria are
> certainly an issue, as is common sense.

Wow! We're in agreement! Scary. :-)

IMO, the enthusiasts for electing the RIPE Chair need to first solve the eligibility criteria. This is a difficult, perhaps impossible, problem to solve in a forum like RIPE which is completely open and has no membership.