[ripe-list] The NomCom Requests your Support

Hi, Jim

> On 28/05/2020, 06:58, "Jim Reid" <jim at rfc1035.com> wrote:
>  > On 27 May 2020, at 16:21, Andy Davidson <andy at nosignal.org> wrote:
> > If governance is improved by seeing the Community and NCC separation in the work of our 
> > committees then let's have that improvement for THIS selection.  We can ensure this quickly 
> > (without even delaying the chair appointment) by altering the constitution of those committees
> > today
>  Altering the constitution (composition?) of the Nomcom -- which is presumably one of “those
> committees” -- means changing RFC728. That will be a very slow and painful exercise. 

Yes, composition.  And it does not mean improving RIPE-728 instantly, just some concrete actions by members which solve this conflict of interest at play whilst the work continues.

> Suppose none of the other Nomcom members are prepared to serve as its Chairman if Daniel is
> thought to be no longer acceptable in that role. What then? 

I think better of the people on the Nom-com than to assume they would do that. I think better of Daniel than a supposition that he would want or encourage them to do that. 

> What if some of the Nomcom quit in disgust because of these shenanigans? Are these risks worth it?

We can all play the what if game - what if people are turned off by participating in our community because we are seen to do nothing when there is a governance problem?

In the past, the RIPE Community Chair and the chair of a RIPE Committee/Task Force/Working Group could have had a conversation about a problem regarding RIPE community oversight to an NCC person or function or service.  Right now, they can't because the RIPE Chair and the Chair of this Committee *work for the NCC*, and one reports to the other.  Do you not see how this is a governance problem, however accidentally derived?  Yes or no?


Andy