[ripe-chair-discuss] RIPE Chair Selection Process

> On 18 Oct 2018, at 12:24, Daniel Karrenberg <dfk at ripe.net> wrote:
>> On 11/10/2018 15:24, Bijal Sanghani wrote:
>> ... 
>> The NomCom is selected randomly by whatever ‘name in the hat’ process, however to volunteer to be on the NomCom you must have been active in the RIPE community over the last x years by either attending y RIPE meetings or being active on a RIPE mailing list (or some defined criteria). 
>> The NomCom review and select the candidate who is presented to the community to endorse or reject.
>> This keeps the process lightweight, open and removes the wgcc involvement, unless they want to put their name in the hat of course.
>> Thoughts?
> Going this way bears the danger of selecting a chair who cannot work
> well with a significant part of the working group chairs. The resulting
> friction fill discredit our governance, consume a lot of energy better
> used for constructive work and may even destabilise RIPE. This is not
> the way to run a railroad.

1) Bijal has raised an extremely valid point and I for one am supportive of her suggestion.

2) WG Chairs can and do change a lot more frequently than the RIPE Chair... so whilst I do think that both parties need to work together, it is important to keep the above in mind and select a good Chair who is able to work with different personalities. The people who volunteer as WG chairs put themselves forward (during their own selection period) knowing who the RIPE Chair is at the time.

I am not suggesting for one moment that one is more important than the other.

Regards
Denesh



> We have to find a real bottom-up selection process that includes the
> volunteers who help to make RIPE work.
> 
> And please can we get consensus the "RIPE Chair" document first.
> 
> Daniel
>