[ripe-chair-discuss] Chair nomination process

Dave Knight wrote on 15/05/2020 17:39:
> It feels like the deeper issue here is not so much about the chair
> selection process as it is the grey area of where the separation
> between RIPE Community and RIPE NCC lies.

Dave,

there are a number of different issues here, interrelated.  The more 
important issue is the working relationship between the RIPE NCC MD, the 
Nomcom Chair and one of the candidates.  Generally-accepted principles 
of good governance suggest that it is best to avoid making 
governance-related decisions where governance neutrality is a critical 
requirement, but where there are relationships of authority involved.  I 
believe we have now found ourselves in this situation.

Some people have questioned whether any of this reflects on the NomCom 
process, but it's not unusual for processes to be affected by external 
events.  In this situation, the process didn't anticipate that the RIPE 
Chair would become RIPE NCC MD.  Now, there isn't a de facto problem 
with a RIPE Chair becoming RIPE NCC MD, at least where protections have 
been put in place (and in this case they were), but it has an impact on 
the NomCom process and we can't ignore this.

The other thing you bring up is the relationship between the RIPE 
Community and the RIPE NCC.  There's a much broader underlying issue of 
how this relationship has worked and ought to work, but either the RIPE 
NCC and/or its staff should have direct input in RIPE Community policy 
and affairs, or they shouldn't, or something in-between.

If they should, then there is no compelling need for the NomCom to 
outline all the steps that it's taken to show its independence from the 
RIPE NCC.  For that matter, why are RIPE NCC staff members encouraged 
not to contribute to RIPE policy discussions?

And if they shouldn't have direct input into RIPE Community stuff, then 
how would this be compatible with the NomCom / RIPE NCC relationship 
situation as it stands?

Th NCC/Community relationship is something complex, and sits somewhere 
in between these two poles, and each side has always resisted defining 
it too carefully.  That said, we may be running into a case here which 
demonstrates weakness in this approach.  I don't believe, incidentally, 
that re- or over-defining this relationship will fix the problem at hand 
(or any other problems for that matter), but that doesn't mean we 
shouldn't acknowledge the complexity of the relationship.

The root issue here seems more to be a problem of circumstance and not 
of people.  I'm directly concerned that if it continues, whatever 
outcome happens will be open to questions about governance and that 
result would be detrimental to all.  I think Andy is right to ask for 
the process to stop so that we can take stock of what's going on and 
make changes if necessary.

Nick