[ripe-chair-discuss] Chair nomination process

Nurani,

Just to get the premises right: you keep claiming that a Spanish wall 
between RIPE and the RIPE NCC is either codified in or processes or our 
practice. As Gert pointed out the former is not the case. I have pointed 
out anecdotal evidence that the latter is not a tradition either. So 
claiming that this ‘sits at the heart of our community values’ 
appears far fetched to me.

About whether such a Spanish wall is desirable our opinions obviously 
differ. And I recognise that you are not alone. So I suggest that you 
organise to get such a
Spanish wall codified in our processes and we will have that discussion.

You have said ‘And to be absolutely clear from my side as well, this 
is in no way a comment on any of the volunteers, staff members or 
candidates involved.’ Can I take this to mean that we can carry on 
with the running process? Or do I detect a desire to influence the 
running process? If the latter is true then the NomCom will  need 
concrete suggestions with significant support.

As far as the running process is concerned the NomCom has meticulously 
adhered to ripe-727/728. So far we have heard a lot of positive input 
about the nominees. The NomCom has already talked about conflicts of 
interest and dependencies in principle. We have not discussed particular 
nominees yet. I am sure that the NomCom will consider these aspects 
carefully once we discuss candidate selection; and that includes 
appearances too.

Daniel (speaking for himself and himself only)