[ripe-chair-discuss] RIPE Chair appointment procedure

Thanks Jim for explaining the difference between election and selection.
The missing "s" in my previous mail was a mere typo, not an
intentional ruling out of any processes!
Happens with non-native english speakers at times which may be the
majority of our community.
Hence the need for open, transparent and easy to find documents for
any process to be defined, including the leader *selections* in our
fora.

Filiz

On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 12:29 PM, Jim Reid <jim at rfc1035.com> wrote:
>
>> On 21 Oct 2016, at 09:04, Filiz Yilmaz <koalafil at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> So with this discussion we may have the opportunity to both come up
>> with a process for an election and move this document from a Draft
>> state to a proper RIPE Document status.
>
> s/election/selection/
>
> Part of this discussion has to include deciding what process is used for appointing the RIPE Chair. We shouldn't rule out (or rule in) particular options at this stage. We should examine those options and aim to reach agreement on which one works best.
>
> Personally, I strongly recommend we stick by the open, consensus-driven approach we use for selecting WG chairs and making RIPE policy. Votes give me the heebie-jeebies when literally anyone is able to vote and do so as many times as they want.
>
> We must be very careful that the selection mechanism for RIPE Chair is not vulnerable to manipulation, say by an undesirable wannabe and their newly created 100,000 Facebook friends. At the same time, the barriers to entry for participating in that appointment decision should be no higher than they are for participation in any WG: ie an email address and some ability to communicate in English.
>
>