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

On Thu, 17 Nov 2016, Shane Kerr wrote:

> Carlos,

Hi,


> At 2016-11-15 22:49:17 +0000
> Carlos Friacas <cfriacas at fccn.pt> wrote:
>
>> From the discussion at RIPE73 in Madrid, i also agree with the idea of
>> having a Vice-Chair.
>
> Yes, I think having a vice-chair makes sense. Probably the role would
> be something like:
>
> 1. Serve as Chair if the Chair is temporarily or permanently unable to
>   perform Chair duties.
>
> 2. Assist the Chair in any way that the Chair and Vice-Chair find
>   reasonable.

100% agree, with 1. and 2.


>> When the Chair steps down, the Vice-Chair could automatically become Chair
>> (if he/she accepts). When a new Vice-Chair appointment is needed, i would
>> say the best recruiting base would be the WG Chairs group (currently more
>> than 20 people, right?).
>
> So you think that the Chair selection process should actually be the
> Vice-Chair selection process? I'm not sure about that. It seems like
> being a Vice-Chair should be about helping the Chair, not just waiting
> around for the Chair to retire. ;)

Haven't thought about that angle... :-)

"Forcing" any new Chair to serve as Vice-Chair will not only provide more 
insight, but might increase the community's confidence on a future Chair.

Anyway, any Vice-Chair should be able to step down when he/she wishes, or 
if the Chair thinks the Vice-Chair needs to be replaced. I guess that "OR" 
should be an important feature ;-)


> If we don't consider the Vice-Chair to be a "Chair in Waiting",
> the we can just let the Chair pick. That seems like the best way to get
> someone who can help out with a style that matches the Chair.

I can agree with that. On the other hand, if a consensus between the Chair 
and the community can be found, even better...


>> Either asking the WG Chair with more time on his/her record on that
>> role/group to step up as Vice-Chair, or run an election process if two (or
>> more) WG Chairs wish to become Vice-Chair on the same opportunity, sounds
>> acceptable to me.
>>
>> We can also strenghten this by requiring that the new Vice-Chair is
>> supported by *N* WG Chairs, despite its current time count as a WG Chair.
>>
>> I would also argue that former WG Chairs should be "eligible" --
>> especially if noone from the current set of WG Chairs wants to become
>> Vice-Chair. And if time count becomes a criteria, all the time spent on
>> the WG Chair role should be considered.
>
> I don't like having a requirement for the Vice-Chair (or Chair) to be a
> current or former RIPE working group chair. Certainly being a working
> group chair is valuable experience for the role, but I don't think a
> necessary requirement.

I don't have that experience, and as such, i appreciate the voluntary 
work/effort done by WG Chairs, from present and past.
If no requirements are needed/set, in theory, even a newcomer could be 
(s)elec*ed as a new Chair -- and i don't really like that possibility :-)


Cheers,
Carlos


> Cheers,
>
> --
> Shane
>