[ripe-list] The NomCom Requests your Support

On 5/26/20 1:29 AM, jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) wrote:
>> On 25 May 2020, at 23:42, Nick Hilliard <nick at foobar.org> wrote:

Dear all,

>> 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. They?ve been accommodated. It?s been explained why it?s both impractical and unreasonable to address those concerns at this time. Or to pause the current process until such time as they could be addressed.
> 
> Those who disagree with that assessment are welcome to raise their concerns with the NomCom. After all, the people raising these concerns have said that they are not questioning the integrity or judgement of either the Nomcom or the candidates. So in that case, the Nomcom and candidiates should be left to get on with the job they *volunteered* to perform. Or are they not to be trusted after all?
> 
> If the Nomcom can be trusted, raise these recent concerns through the appropriate channel and let the Nomcom decide what to do about those concerns since we can be sure they?ll do The Right Thing. It?s that simple. If the Nomcom can?t be trusted, we have to blow up the appointment process -- good luck getting consensus on a new one -- and then be forced to make even uglier decisions about how to appoint a temporary replacement who may well be left dangling for years. FWIW it took 4 years to get consensus on the current selection process and start implementing it. Does anyone *really* want to start all that again?
> 
> Remember that the current process is not cast in stone. It can (and very probably will) get revised in light of the lessons learned from the first time it?s been tried. That will be the proper time and place to address these recent concerns. Please note these were raised long after the train had left the station. We?d reached consensus on how Hans Petter?s successor was to be appointed and put that process into effect. Unwinding it now is not a good look at all.
> 
> IIUC RIPE uses the RFC7282 definition of consensus. That means we have rough consensus that the current appointment process with the current NomCom and current pool of candidates can go ahead as-is.
> 
> To quote from RFC7282:
> 
> 3.  Rough consensus is achieved when all issues are addressed, but not
>     necessarily accommodated
> 
>    ...  Often, a working group
>    will encounter an objection where everyone understands the issue and
>    acknowledges that it is a real shortcoming in the proposed solution,
>    but the vast majority of the working group believes that
>    accommodating the objection is not worth the tradeoff of fixing the
>    problem.
> 
> Though for us s/working group/RIPE community/
> 
> Oh and in case there?s any doubt, I say to the Nomcom - just get on with it.

I think that's an excellent analysis, huge +1




Please let's not interrupt the agreed upon process as it will bring a
lot of risk while doing so. It's the first time, there probably are
shortcomings somewhere. Let us please fix those for the second run for
the next RIPE Chair to be after the term of the now we chose now is
finished.




Dear NomCom: Please keep calm and carry on <3







Best



Max