[ripe-list] The NomCom Requests your Support

Hi Andy,

> On 26/05/2020, 00:30, Jim Reid <jim at rfc1035.com> wrote:
>>> On 25 May 2020, at 23:42, Nick Hilliard <nick at foobar.org> wrote:
>>> The concerns that were raised on the ripe-chair-discuss mailing list haven't been addressed.
>>> Rather than prompting for a mandate to "just get on with it", these issues need to be addressed.
>> With all due respect Nick, no they don’t. The concerns you and others have raised have
>> been heard. They don’t have to be addressed.
> 
> Jim, you then go on to quote directly from RFC7282 which says very clearly that the concerns DO need to be addressed.

Jim quoted it the wrong way around: concerns have to be addressed, but not accommodated.

>> To quote from RFC7282:
>> 3.  Rough consensus is achieved when all issues are addressed, but not
>>  necessarily accommodated
> 
> Nick has made some very valid points on the ripe-chair-discuss mailing list, in message https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ripe-chair-discuss/2020-May/000271.html.  After just three days of discussion, Daniel shut down the conversation in message https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ripe-chair-discuss/2020-May/000347.html saying the Nomcom needed to 'take a break for a few days'.  Without responding to any of the concerns - or 'addressing' them to use your choice of word, or even reference to them, Daniel then opens a new thread on an entirely different mailing list asking for wide community support to proceed unchanged.

I feel this is an unreasonable attack on Daniel. He has done no such thing as shutting down the discussion. And yes: we needed a break to discuss the feedback and consider how to address it. Daniel is the chair of the NomCom. Daniel chairs the NomCom meetings, and the NomCom decides how to move forward. Your wording makes it sound like Daniel is the one making the decisions. I can assure your that that is not the case.

> This is not consensus building.  This is not suitable methodology from the Chair.  This is disingenuous.

I think there is a misunderstanding about the process here: We try to hear all voices from the community to determine who would be the best people for the chair and vice-chair functions, and if we can get unanimous support for those candidates then that would be the optimal outcome. Which is what we try to achieve of course! But in the end, the process is: "NomCom actively solicits input from the entire community" and "The NomCom then selects one person to serve as RIPE Chair and another person to serve as RIPE Vice Chair". The process is not "NomCom builds consensus". If that is what you want then propose an update to ripe-727 for the next iteration of the process. This is not the time to try to change the process.

> I would ask those wishing to contribute to this thread to read the ripe-chair-discuss thread to familiarise themselves with the complaint.

Absolutely!

> The pool of talent in the RIPE community is sufficiently large enough to mean that the independence of the NCC and Community can be preserved through having different people contribute to the work of our committees, working-groups, and leadership teams; to say or to behave that this is not the case demonstrates contempt.

Please stop trying to insult the NomCom and its chair. The last thing the NomCom has for the community is contempt. We do however listen to the entire community and balance the feedback received from all. What happened on ripe-chair-discuss is one data point for us, and we take that very seriously. We even think about how to accommodate it as far as possible, but we will definitely address it.

Cheers,
Sander

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/ripe-list/attachments/20200526/3006c489/attachment.sig>