[ripe-chair-discuss] Chair nomination process

> On 14 May 2020, at 15:43, Kurtis Lindqvist <kurtis at kurtis.pp.se> wrote:
> 
> I am failing to understand what I sense is questioning of why we are providing input and even if we should provide input.

Kurtis, there seems to be a huge disconnect here.

Nobody’s "questioning of why we are providing input and even if we should provide input to the Nomcom". Well, not that I can see. AFAICT some people are raising questions about the process and/or perceived conflicts of interest in the NomCom. These are inappropriate at this time IMO because they should have been raised when the process was developed or when the composition of the NomCom was announced. They weren’t.

Those who have these concerns are welcome to give their input to the NomCom where I’m sure it will get the proper care and attention. Carrying on that discussion here is probably not going to help. 

So we have essentially two choices;

1) Let the current process run to a conclusion and trust all those involved to do the right thing wrt actual or perceived conflicts of interest. And just suck it up if the pool of candidates or NomCom composition is not as broad/diverse as some would like.

2) Blow up the current process and start from scratch. Which could well take beyond the heat death of the universe to resolve. And no doubt wipe out any goodwill from potential candidates and Nomcom members => an even worse outcome next time around.

What’s it to be?

Now OK, how the current process has worked out is not to everyone’s taste. But it’s good enough. [The perfect is the enemy of the good remember.] The process can of course be improved or amended in light of what we’ve found after it got used for the first time. That analysis and refinement should get done once the process has completed - unless of course it implodes beforehand.