[ripe-chair-discuss] Chair nomination process

Hello all,

Like several others, I am uneasy with how this is proceeding. I also find it unpleasant to categorise people who bring their concerns to this list as “complaining”, I see it as providing feedback.

I’m aware the relevant policies have reached consensus quite some time ago, and to the best of my knowledge, they are being followed to the letter. However, I think it is too simple to say that just because this is how it was written, that is undoubtedly always the right path forward and beyond criticism.

A number of things have happened since the adoption of the policy, which some or many of us may not have anticipated:
- The at the time RIPE chair becoming the MD of the RIPE NCC and currently being interim chair
- A current RIPE NCC staff member being a nominee
- The possibility of the RIPE chair being a paid position

This situation not being anticipated, at least not by me, may have contributed to why the concerns were not raised while the process was developed. It does not inherently make the concerns invalid.

None of these things are wrong, and individually it may have mattered less, but it creates the situation where:
- Potential nominees were not accurately informed about the impact of being RIPE chair
- Two of the people involved in the NomCom, although non-voting, being RIPE NCC employees, while being included in a decision process over another RIPE NCC employee, who may become RIPE chair

Now, none of this is a violation of process, everyone involved in the NomCom and the nominees have acted correctly, and I’m sure they are able to separate their hats. The process has been followed precisely, nobody has acted improperly, but still I think the optics of it are just bad.

Personally, I think the worst part is the inconsistency in whether or not the RIPE chair is a paid position, because it may have excluded potential nominees, and it’s not like we have that many anyways. However, the process does not technically forbid this situation, so also here, what is happening is technically correct, but it looks pretty bad.

That said, how do we move forward? Extending the current situation by months at least is not a good option, because the interim RIPE chair and the RIPE NCC MD being the same person also looks bad - and seems like too much work for one person. Having Hans Petter as RIPE chair with support from Mirjam is even worse optics, in my opinion. Simply appointing another interim chair has all the downsides that this process was aiming to improve upon.

So, even with valid concerns about the optics of proceeding as originally planned, I think our only choice is to move forward with what we have. I don’t like this choice, but all other options are just as bad or worse, both in terms of process and optics.

(The suggestion of using the dispute resolution process is a bit odd to me, because what has happened so far is technically in line with what was written - the NomCom has not violated any policy.)

Sasha