[ripe-chair-discuss] Status of RIPE Chair discussion?

On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 4:58 PM, Job Snijders <job at ntt.net> wrote:
<snip>
> A leadership position which is instantiated to lead and serve a
> community, must be chosen by that very same community, _not_ by "the
> previous person". I fear the chair-selecting-chair methodology can
> weaken our posture against self-selection bias, and the methodology does
> very little against a chairperson operating with blinders on. Just
> because this method was used once before, does not make it a common
> practise nor is the single occurance a justification in itself to repeat
> the practise.

I think our problem might lay here hidden in two terms
"lead" and "selected by" or "appointed by"


I would suggest we replace the world "lead" with "guide".
I have not yet seen either Rob or Hans Petter really us, we, the
community pick our path, Rob/Hans Petter then help us/guide us in that
direction. Another think a chair does is to give the outside world,
the more formal world, an obvious place of contact.


Regarding "selected" or "appointed", if we go down the path of
"selected" we need alot more formalized procedures on how we can
select someone. If we pick the "appointed" path it is enough that
current RIPE Chair appoint someone as vice-chair, then _request_ the
community to confirm that selections. Without that confirmations from
the community it's hard to say that the vice-chair represent us.


Isn't that simply enough?



-- 

Roger Jorgensen
rogerj at gmail.com / roger at jorgensen.no