[ripe-chair-discuss] Chair nomination process

> On 15 May 2020, at 09:32, Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I do not think we should ignore the people who have indicated they are unhappy. 

They have not been ignored Gordon. They’ve been listened to.

They’ve been asked to make suggestions on what would make them less unhappy. So far, there’s been silence AFAICT.

It’s very disappointing and frustrating to raise these meta-issues -- after saying *nothing* when the process was developed and agreed or when the Nomcom was formed!!! -- and then fail to make any constructive proposals on how to deal with their complaints. That makes it very hard to decide what to do next.

> I recognise the hard work that has gone in. Let me say, thank you. And it would indeed be nice if significant effort always ensured acceptable outcomes. But am i the only one who has had a project cancelled or had to stop a project? Whatever. Sunk costs, in whatever form, do not represent the best argument.
> 
> Of course the question has been rightly put: so what do we do? Pragmatically...

I already explained there are two choices. Stick with the agreed process that’s already in progress or blow it up and start again. Only one of these is sensible or pragmatic.

The only option IMO is to stick with the process that’s under way. Some may be uneasy about that. Well, that’s just too bad. We can’t always get what we want. Suck it up.

Those who are complaining now had plenty of opportunities to raise their concerns long before the appointment process started. They didn’t do that. They didn’t complain when the Nomcom membership was announced either. In my view it’s grossly unreasonable to try to overturn the community’s consensus decision and and agreed process in this way.

Those who are unhappy can make their concerns known to the Nomcom. I suggest they do that. I think they also need to re-read RIPE728. If they are unhappy with how the Nomcom is functioning, RIPE728 has a mechanism for dispute resolution. They are welcome to use it.

> I think Hans-Petter should carry on as interim chair. I think he should be supported in this by Mirjam.

That's beyond crazy Gordon. Sorry.

Hans Petter *can’t* carry on for much longer as interim RIPE Chairman. Aside from the actual or imagined conflict of interest concerns, he will be more than fully occupied with the responsibiities of his new job running the NCC. It’s also very unwise to put Mirjam on the spot like this while she’s a candidate. The optics on that are very wrong in too many ways.

I fear that if we extend the interim Chairman position, this will never end. Just look at how long it took to develop the current process and get consensus for that. It’ll take at least a year to come up with a new one or make changes to the existing one. And then consider the strong likelihood of getting poorer community participation for procedure v2 because v1 got killed. Why bother volunteering after you saw what happened to the previous attempt?

Leaving Hans Petter dangling in this way is unfair. And it takes the pressure off the community to find a solution since there’s no firm deadline. ie If we go round in circles for a year and get nowhere, it's no big deal - just give Hans Petter another extension and kick the can further down the road. Repeat ad nauseam.

Please note too that this thread was sparked by a concern that too many of the people involved in the selection process -- either as candidates or as members of the Nomcom -- were/are too close to the NCC. How could extending the term of the interim RIPE chairman and adding another RIPE NCC employee as vice chairman make *any* positive or pragmatic impact on this situation?