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

Job,

we are looking to select someone who keeps the community working well
and working together. We are not selecting a "leader". We are not
selecting someone in a corporate governance role.

I do not think that "bottom-up requires elections" is true. We have been
successful for 28 years without electing our chair and I argue that we
have had a productive time *because* we have not had RIPE chair
elections every three years.

Elections do *not* have a high potential to select the kind of person we
want. The ideal person is not the one who gets nominated and elected.
They are also not the people who win a popularity contest nor a
name-recognition game.

Elections also have a high potential to be extremely divisive rather
than unifying. A lot of energy may be necessary to re-unite the
community after a fiercely contested election.

Elections also tend to cost a lot of energy during the campaigns if they
are contested.

"Short, hard terms and term limits" are also not appropriate for the
RIPE chair. Hard terms and term limits tend to force "renewal" at very
bad moments in time. That is why I proposed text with a lot of
flexibility and with a lot of "usually"s in there. We want someone with
"gravitas" and continuity. We want flexibility to time the changing of
the watch.

What you propose is absolutely appropriate for corporate governance
positions within groups of people like the RIPE NCC board. It is not
appropriate to select the best person as RIPE chair.

Maybe we can compromise on a system where "current chair proposes new
vice chair to WG chairs who confirm or not" and "WG chairs provide
formal feedback on performance of chair and vice chair at regular
intervals"?

I will be busy with family things during the next couple of weeks.
I will try to read this list. But I may not be able to participate in
the discussion much. But by all means keep it going!

I also realise that we are missing a "design document" for fundamental
ideas behind the RIPE & RIPE NCC system of self-governance. It is all
passed on by word-of-mouth and experience. I am quite willing to help
write something like this together with a couple of WG chairs; then have
the community discuss it. Any takers?

Daniel


PS: For those who do not know me: I'd like to think that I am not just
an inflexible traditionalist who wants the 'good old times' to never
end. Look at my CV and judge for yourself. Even if you don't you should
know that I have been "supporting the RIPE community since 1989", have
been the one and only vice chair of RIPE to date and that I have ample
experience with governance of both informal groups and serious
corporations. I *do* lack experience in the governance of fully
for-profit enterprises.
https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/bios/bio-karrenberg-06aug14-en.pdf

PPS: And yes I have fought alongside Nurani and Izumi in the IANA
transition battles within ICANN.  While I can work in such a system,
I do not think it is remotely applicable to what RIPE is now and should
be in the future.