[ripe-list] The NomCom Requests your Support

> On 26 May 2020, at 10:10, Erik Bais <ebais at a2b-internet.com> wrote:
> 
> I hope that we don't Runout-runout of Interim Interim RIPE Chairs before we complete this

Those who are raising concerns need to think *very* carefully about the consequences of introducing these (unnecessary IMO) additional risks and uncertainties at this late stage. A runout-runout of interim-interim RIPE Chairmen is just the tip of the iceberg. Here are some of the others:

1) Derailing a community-agreed process *while it is under way* because a few people don't like the initial outcomes sets a very ugly and dangerous precedent. More so when they said nothing at the time when each of those agreed milestones had been reached and there were opportunities to comment on them.

2) Appointing another interim RIPE Chairman is the responsibility of the WG Chairs, a group that is dysfunctional at taking decisions. How long will it take them to make their mind up? Assuming they can find people who would be willing and capable of performing in that role. Which is yet another big risk/uncertainty.

3) Knowing the prevailing circumstances, who would choose to step into this mess and serve as interim RIPE Chairman? And imagine the conversations with their employer or family: “I’m going to take an unpaid full-time job for an unknown length of time while RIPE bickers. Hope that’s OK with you.”.

4) Pausing (or whatever) the current process effectively tells the Nomcom they don’t have the community’s confidence. If I was on the Nomcom, I’d quit if that happened. I wouldn’t want to be considered as a replacement for anyone who did quit either. What do we do when good people walk away from the Nomcom and/or decline to replace those who did?

5) Pausing (or whatever) the current process effectively tells the current candidates they don’t have the community’s confidence. One way or another they’re being told they’re not “good enough”. If I was one of them, I’d withdraw. What do we do when excellent candidates walk away? What happens if nobody else comes forward? Remember they’ll have seen how dreadfully the current candidates have been treated. Who’d choose to go through that?

6) What happens if more candidates do come forward during this pause and they turn out to be unsuitable too? [For some definition of unsuitable.] Do we pause again (and again) until we come up with a mix of candidates that gets near-unanimous approval? And what do we do in the interim?

Are these risks and uncertainties worth it? I don’t think so.


Gert summed up the situation very well:

> We do have a good set of very talented and widely recognized nominees.
> 
> Would it be good to have a wider selection?  Maybe.
> 
> Have all these other people of talent come forward and volunteered?  No.
> 
> What shall we do?