[cooperation-wg] time-lines for co-chair appointments
- Previous message (by thread): [cooperation-wg] time-lines for co-chair appointments
- Next message (by thread): [cooperation-wg] time-lines for co-chair appointments
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Meredith Whittaker
meredithrachel at google.com
Mon Jul 11 20:54:38 CEST 2016
We would not be going back to a fait accompli. We would be making a decision following a month and some weeks deliberation on the list. However, the mode by which a decision gets made, process or no, is not clear or determined. As co-chair, I expressed my preferences as they relate to people I will be working and collaborating with. My preferences have not changed. That's what I'm able to do. I am not able to divine the "will of the group," nor is there a process drafted to do so. I appreciate your continued participation and your drive toward clarity, Gordon. Thanks, Meredith On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com> wrote: > I am confused. Maybe I am the only one? > > When it was announced that the new co-chairs were to be Collin and > Achilleas I objected. I did not object to the two personalities. I simply > did not agree with the WG being presented with a fait accompli without any > prior discussion. I said this on the list. I suggested instead that the > procedure as drafted by Meredith and published on the RIPE web-site be > followed. There was support for that. > > The procedure was then followed and we now have several candidates for > co-chair. > > There was also a positive exchange about the time-table. I thought the > proposal by Collin was good. I do not remember any pushback. > > I am not aware of any contributions on the list which I would consider > unproductive or hostile. Maybe things were said or written elsewhere which > I was not party to. But I obviously cannot comment on that. > > I have seen Julf on the list. I have see Collin on the list. That is good. > And of course I guess everybody appreciated Collin stepping in when > Meredith was not available. > > I sympathise with the conflict Meredith feels between the demands of her > day-job and the role of co-chair. I guess many of us have been in similar > situations and so we know the hard decisions that then have to be taken. > > But to use that to go back to the fait accompli does not feel right. To > ignore the process, to ignore the WG cannot be right. > > So where do we go from here? > > Gordon > > > > On 11 Jul 2016, at 17:35, Meredith Whittaker <meredithrachel at google.com> > wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > First, thank you all for being patient with my lack of response. I have > been extremely busy, and have put aside replying to any email that is not > mission critical because my day job required it. As I made clear at the > meeting and on the list multiple times, this is one of the reasons that I > pushed for a swift appointment/anointment of co-chairs. The Coop WG work is > simply not something I can do on my own, especially not right now. > > > > Secondly, I do not know what the revised schedule for selecting > co-chairs is. This, I think, is a critical point. > > > > Timeline: I proposed a schedule before RIPE72, and received pushback at > the meeting and on the list. Collin proposed a revised schedule at the > meeting, and received pushback. All of this referring to vague protocol, > but none willing to follow written protocol (see, my proposal before > RIPE72) when it pushes against some or another desired outcome. Here is > revealed an uneasy norm on the list, in which the Chairs and others can > suggest what they will, but have no authority to actually move forward with > one or another suggestion. The membership of the list, on the other hand, > has no responsibility but to declare dissatisfaction. The tone this sets is > both unproductive and, frankly, hostile. Corinne summarized this > beautifully in a past email. Combine this with the fact that chairing the > group is a volunteer position, and we have a situation in which, frankly, > busy people with day jobs put dealing with mailing list vagueness and > hostility toward the bottom of their list. > > > > So, what do you suggest? Were I to move forward, I would very quickly > select Achilles and Collin as co-chairs. They are both active, helpful, and > have shown themselves to be directly engaged in issues central to the Coop > WG. > > > > However, I expect resistance to these selections. Following such > resistance, I have no clarity on what happens, or what others suppose > should happen. > > > > Best, > > Meredith > > > -- Meredith Whittaker Open Research Lead Google NYC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/cooperation-wg/attachments/20160711/2f8c4fbe/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [cooperation-wg] time-lines for co-chair appointments
- Next message (by thread): [cooperation-wg] time-lines for co-chair appointments
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]