You are here: Home > Participate > Join a Discussion > RIPE Forum
RIPE Forum v1.4.1

IoT Working Group

Threaded
Collapse

[iot-wg] WG co-chair appointment

User Image

Sandoche BALAKRICHENAN

2020-05-11 10:07:20 CET

Dear all,

Jim announced on 20/04 that he is stepping down as Co-Chair. Two 
candidates have come forward: Peter Steinhauser and Constanze Dietrich. 
Thanks to both for volunteering.

Constanze 
:https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/iot-wg/2020-April/000493.html
Peter     
:https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/iot-wg/2020-April/000482.html

We would like to have a consensus determination and announce the new 
Co-Chair during the RIPE 80 Virtual meeting.

Use the appropriate thread(s) with subject line: "Peter Steinhaeuser for 
co-chair" and "Constanze Dietrich for co-chair" to express your support

Jim and Sandoche.


User Image

Sandoche BALAKRICHENAN

2020-05-11 10:16:35 CET

Since I got a comment, I am adding one more information. This reminder 
is only for members who have not already expressed support for the WG 
Co-Chair appointment in the list.

Sandoche.

On 11/05/2020 10:07, sandoche Balakrichenan wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Jim announced on 20/04 that he is stepping down as Co-Chair. Two 
> candidates have come forward: Peter Steinhauser and Constanze 
> Dietrich. Thanks to both for volunteering.
>
> Constanze 
> :https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/iot-wg/2020-April/000493.html
> Peter 
> :https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/iot-wg/2020-April/000482.html
>
> We would like to have a consensus determination and announce the new 
> Co-Chair during the RIPE 80 Virtual meeting.
>
> Use the appropriate thread(s) with subject line: "Peter Steinhaeuser 
> for co-chair" and "Constanze Dietrich for co-chair" to express your 
> support
>
> Jim and Sandoche.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> iot-wg mailing list
> iot-wg _at_ ripe _dot_ net
> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/iot-wg

Gordon Lennox

2020-05-11 13:50:16 CET

A question for the current co-chairs: do we need only one new co-chair? Can we not have two?

I would guess that there is a formal, administrative answer out there. But a response from the current co-chairs could be useful.

Gordon

> On 11 May 2020, at 10:16, sandoche Balakrichenan <sandoche.balakrichenan _at_ afnic _dot_ fr> wrote:
> 
> Since I got a comment, I am adding one more information. This reminder is only for members who have not already expressed support for the WG Co-Chair appointment in the list.
> 
> Sandoche.


User Image

Peter Steinhaeuser

2020-05-11 14:20:49 CET

Hi Gordon,

the number of 2 co-chairs was agreed upon when defining the chair selection process at the time the working group was founded:

> (1) The IoT WG will have 2 co-chairs who serve staggered 2-year terms.
> (2) A co-chair cannot serve more than 3 consecutive terms.
> (3) Each year, the co-chair whose term is up will stand down and subject to (2) may make themselves available for re-appointment.
> (4) The incoming co-chair will be chosen by the WG using consensus and the remaining co-chair will make the consensus determination.
> (5) Any circumstances not covered by the above will be resolved by the RIPE Chair whose  decision will be final.

(1) is not shown on the IoT working group page at the RIPE website. To change the number of co-chairs the working group would need
to reach a consensus on that matter (Jim / Sandoche please correct me if I’m wrong).

- Peter

> Am 11.05.2020 um 13:50 schrieb Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13 _at_ gmail _dot_ com>:
> 
> A question for the current co-chairs: do we need only one new co-chair? Can we not have two?
> 
> I would guess that there is a formal, administrative answer out there. But a response from the current co-chairs could be useful.
> 
> Gordon
> 
>> On 11 May 2020, at 10:16, sandoche Balakrichenan <sandoche.balakrichenan _at_ afnic _dot_ fr> wrote:
>> 
>> Since I got a comment, I am adding one more information. This reminder is only for members who have not already expressed support for the WG Co-Chair appointment in the list.
>> 
>> Sandoche.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> iot-wg mailing list
> iot-wg _at_ ripe _dot_ net
> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/iot-wg


Jim Reid

2020-05-11 14:30:29 CET


> On 11 May 2020, at 12:50, Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13 _at_ gmail _dot_ com> wrote:
> 
> A question for the current co-chairs: do we need only one new co-chair? Can we not have two?


Gordon, the current process says the WG has two co-chairs who serve staggered two-year terms.

If the WG wants more co-chairs, someone needs to start a discussion about that and take account of what their proposed changes mean for the term limit provision to ensure a healthy turnover of co-chairs. [I suppose a maximum of 2 3-year terms would be just as good as 3 2-year terms. YMMV.] Once that’s sorted we then need to get the WG to reach consensus on the new process.

I think that discussion would need to take place after the appointment procedure that’s already in progress has run its course. We can’t realistically change engines in mid-flight. More so when the plane’s on its final approach for landing. :-)

Personally speaking, I think two co-chairs for the WG is enough. The workload isn’t high enough (yet) to justify more. Though this has of course to be a decision for the WG to make. FWIW, few other WGs have >2 co-chairs.


User Image

Sandoche BALAKRICHENAN

2020-05-11 14:43:10 CET

On 11/05/2020 14:30, Jim Reid wrote:
>
>> On 11 May 2020, at 12:50, Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13 _at_ gmail _dot_ com> wrote:
>>
>> A question for the current co-chairs: do we need only one new co-chair? Can we not have two?
> 
> Gordon, the current process says the WG has two co-chairs who serve staggered two-year terms.
>
> If the WG wants more co-chairs, someone needs to start a discussion about that and take account of what their proposed changes mean for the term limit provision to ensure a healthy turnover of co-chairs. [I suppose a maximum of 2 3-year terms would be just as good as 3 2-year terms. YMMV.] Once that’s sorted we then need to get the WG to reach consensus on the new process.
>
> I think that discussion would need to take place after the appointment procedure that’s already in progress has run its course. We can’t realistically change engines in mid-flight. More so when the plane’s on its final approach for landing. :-)
>
> Personally speaking, I think two co-chairs for the WG is enough. The workload isn’t high enough (yet) to justify more. Though this has of course to be a decision for the WG to make. FWIW, few other WGs have >2 co-chairs.
>
>


I agree with Jim. The workload isn't enough to justify more than two chairs.

Sandoche.