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

Hello,

I am with Shane here: I would not like to limit the candidacy too
tight, to a particular group, regarding to the recent mail from Carlos
specifically, to WG Chairs collective.

I think anyone should be allowed be a candidate if they are willing to
serve as a RIPE Chair [Maybe it can be limited to non-RIPE NCC Staff
and non-NCC Board at the best. ]
This way we keep the candidacy pool rich.
But of course experience will be a factor in their selection process
as a RIPE Chair.
For example former NCC Board members could also make very good RIPE
Chairs in principle, who may or may not have been WG Chairs in the
past, but will have heaps of experience in consensus building and
leadership.
[Side note: I would not like to see any current Board member being the
RIPE Chair while they keep their Board position. Ideally RIPE Chair
should be exclusively from community imo...)

Having said that utilising the collective knowledge and experience of
the WG Chairs Group can be a good idea too.

What about the following, roughly speaking:

- Anybody can be a candidate, with the possible exception of RIPE NCC
Staff and Board. Otherwise, they need to leave their positions at the
RIPE NCC, if they get selected as the RIPE Chair at the end of the
process to avoid conflict of interest or perception of it.

- WG Chairs Collective at the time evaluates all candidates and comes
up with a list of eligible candidates.

- RIPE Community runs an election among these eligible candidates
(Like the ones we run for NRO NC reps or RIPE PC...).

- Vice-Chair gets appointed by the elected-RIPE Chair.


Filiz

On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 9:10 AM, Carlos Friacas <cfriacas at fccn.pt> wrote:
>
> 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
>>
>