RIPE Chair Discussion List

Esteemed colleagues,

Based on recent discussions about the RIPE Chair selection, Anna,
Mirjam, Hans Petter and I have been drafting language that will move us
forward. Below you find the first document that is ready enough for
discussion. It deals with the procedure and the time-line.

We are still working on the second document which will describe the
selection committee in detail. This will be modelled very closely on
the IETF NomCom as described in BCP10.

We feel that doing this in two steps is a logical split and will keep
the discussion both alive and somewhat focussed; drawing hope from the
way we got ripe-714 done on this list ;-).  Also we may want to re-use
the selection committee for other purposes in the future; in that case
it will be better to have it described in a separate document. Of course
we can only reach final consensus after discussing both documents.

We welcome comments and suggestions from all of you. It will help
greatly if you suggest concrete changes to the draft.

Thank you, in the name of all authors and participants on this list!

Daniel





-------------------------------------------------------------


The RIPE Chair Selection Process

Hans Petter Holen
Mirjam Kuehne
Daniel Karrenberg
Anna Wilson

ripe-yyy

Version 0.4

March 2019



Scope

This document describes the selection
of the RIPE Chair and the RIPE Vice Chair.
The role of RIPE Chair is described in ripe-714.
The selection committee is described in ripe-xxx.


Background

The first Chair of RIPE, Rob Blokzijl, was selected informally.
The community did not establish a formal mechanism to select
a person for this role before the present time.
When Rob asked Hans Petter Holen to assume the role of RIPE Chair
he also suggested that RIPE should establish
a more formal selection procedure.
This document describes that procedure.
For details see Appendix G.


Principles

The following broad principles emerged from an extensive community
discussion:

A selection committee drawn from the community selects persons
for the role of RIPE Chair for a period of five years with a two term limit.
The selection committee is selected randomly from the community
volunteers and modelled roughly after the IETF NomCom.
There role of the RIPE Vice Chair should be re-established.
The persons selected for the roles of RIPE Chair and RIPE Vice Chair
must both be suitable for the role and have the support of the RIPE
Community.
For details about the community discussions see Appendix G.


RIPE Meeting

A RIPE Meeting is an event where Internet Service Providers (ISPs),
network operators and other interested parties gather
to discuss issues of interest to the Internet community.
This document assumes that there are two RIPE meetings each year.

The RIPE Chair

The role of RIPE Chair is described in ripe-714.
This document describes the selection of a person for that role.
We also describe the tasks of the current RIPE Chair in the process.


The RIPE Vice Chair

This document re-introduces the role of RIPE Vice Chair.
The purpose of that role is to provide continuity in
case the RIPE Chair resigns or is not able to perform their role.
The RIPE Chair may also delegate some of their duties
to the RIPE Vice Chair as described in ripe-714.


The RIPE Selection Committee

The RIPE Selection Committee (SelCom) selects persons for the
RIPE Chair and RIPE Vice Chair roles.
The selection committee consists of randomly selected
community volunteers.
The RIPE Selection Committee is described in ripe-xxx.


The Working Group Chairs Collective

In exceptional circumstances this document
calls on the RIPE working group chairs collective
whenever timely action or consultation is needed.


General Time-Line

The whole process takes roughly one year and two RIPE meetings.
First a call for nominations is issued and the selection committee
established.
Then the list of nominees willing to be selected is published
and the selection committee collects community input;
this phase should include one RIPE meeting in order to provide the
opportunity
for personal interactions with the selection committee.
We call this meeting the "consultation RIPE meeting".
After the consultation meeting the selection committee publishes their
selection.
Finally, the newly selected persons take on their role;
this happens at a RIPE meeting,
so that the community can confirm their support for the selected persons.


Eligibility and Term Limit

Any natural person is eligible for selection
unless they have already been selected twice for their current role.
It does not matter whether or not the terms are consecutive.

Term

The RIPE Chair and RIPE Vice Chair serve
until the RIPE meeting closest to
the fifth anniversary of taking on their role.


Nominations

Around the fourth anniversary of taking on their role the RIPE Chair starts
the new selection procedure by initiating the establishment  of the
selection committee,
making a call for nominations and setting a deadline for nominations
about eight weeks prior to the subsequent RIPE meeting,
the consultation RIPE meeting.

The SelCom checks the eligibility of the nominated persons,
confirms whether the nominated persons wish to serve
and publishes the list of nominees willing to serve
no later than 2 weeks prior to the consultation RIPE meeting.


Community Consultation

The SelCom actively solicits input from the entire community.
It does so as much as possible in an open and transparent manner while
adequately protecting personal information about the candidates.


Selection

The SelCom then selects one person to serve as RIPE Chair and
another person to serve as RIPE Vice Chair.
The SelCom announces their selections no later than two weeks prior
to the  following meeting, the transition RIPE meeting.


Transition

At the transition RIPE meeting the newly selected persons take on their
roles.


Continuity

In case the RIPE Chair resigns the RIPE Vice Chair takes on the role of
RIPE Chair and promptly initiates this selection procedure.
In case the RIPE Vice Chair is not available either,
the WG chairs collective selects a person to act as interim RIPE Chair and
initiates this selection procedure.

In case the RIPE Vice Chair resigns the RIPE Chair selects a person to
fill the role in consultation with the WG chairs collective.


Pragmatism

This document is a guideline that explicitly allows ad-hoc deviations
both for pragmatic reasons and in unforeseen circumstances
without having to change this document each time.
Any such deviations and the appropriate community involvement
should be clearly documented each time.


Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the contributions and efforts
of everyone who participated in the community discussions
that form the basis on which we were able to build this document.
In particular Bijal Sanghani, Randy Bush, %%%% offered detailed
suggestions and comments.


Appendix A - About the Authors

Hans Petter Holen is a RIPE participant since RIPE30
and the present chairman of RIPE.
Rob Blokzijl asked him to ensure that the community establishes the
procedure described here.

Mirjam Kuehne is a RIPE participant since RIPE29
and a member of the RIPE NCC staff.
She took on the task of supporting the community and Hans Petter in this
effort.

Daniel Karrenberg is one of the RIPE founders
and a member of the RIPE NCC staff.
He took on the job of editing this document
and writing the bulk of the text.

Anna Wilson is a RIPE participant since RIPE31.
She has led several fairly  intense community discussions
about this procedure.


Appendix G - Document Genesis

In 2014, during the closing plenary at RIPE 68, Rob Blokzijl announced
that he would be stepping down as RIPE Chair and handing the role over
to the current chair, Hans Petter Holen.

This decision was well supported by the RIPE community. However, it was
clear that the process for selecting a future RIPE Chair should be open,
transparent and endorsed by the RIPE community as a whole. At the time
of the handover, Rob urged the community to establish such a process
under its new chair.

In 2016, Hans Petter started the discussion by publishing an article on
RIPE Labs:

https://labs.ripe.net/Members/hans_petter_holen/draft-ripe-chair-election-procedure

At the same time an open discussion mailing list was set up:
https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ripe-chair-discuss/

At RIPE 76 in May 2018, Anna Wilson (HEANET, Ireland) led a community
discussion (https://ripe76.ripe.net/archives/video/155/) to gather input
on the elements that form the basis of a proposal which was published on
RIPE Labs in July 2018:

https://labs.ripe.net/Members/mirjam/proposal-for-a-ripe-chair-selection-process

Based on the discussion on the ripe-chair-discuss mailing list, another
RIPE Labs article was published documenting the consensus at the time:

https://labs.ripe.net/Members/mirjam/ripe-chair-selection-process

After that more people shared their input on the mailing list which led
to another face-to-face discussion, again led by Anna Wilson during the
closing plenary at RIPE 77 in October 2018
(https://ripe77.ripe.net/archives/video/2329/).

During that meeting it was decided to first establish consensus on
a description of the role of the RIPE Chair. This has been published
as ripe-714: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-714

Hi,

> Based on recent discussions about the RIPE Chair selection, Anna,
> Mirjam, Hans Petter and I have been drafting language that will move us
> forward. Below you find the first document that is ready enough for
> discussion. It deals with the procedure and the time-line.

I like its simplicity and pragmatism. A few small comments:

> General Time-Line

It is not clear to me whether the timelines of chair and vice-chair are linked, or whether they are/can be separate. In other words: are they both selected as a pair, or are their terms independent?

> In case the RIPE Chair resigns the RIPE Vice Chair takes on the role of
> RIPE Chair and promptly initiates this selection procedure.

I think this needs a bit of clarification (depending on the previous comment). Is a new procedure started for just the vice-chair, or for the pair?

> In case the RIPE Vice Chair resigns the RIPE Chair selects a person to
> fill the role in consultation with the WG chairs collective.

I'm a bit uncomfortable with this. Why not start the selection procedure here?

Cheers, and thanks for coming up with a good draft!
Sander

I like this document a lot, especially the bit about using pragmatism and common sense. We need to see much more of this. [ie Keep asking ourselves “what would Rob do?”.]

One thing that worries me is the selection committee making the final decision. I think that has to be for the RIPE community as a whole. ie The selection committee recommends the candidate(s) and the community endorses that recommendation. There should be a cleaner separation of roles here.

It might also be an idea to insert some text after the bit about the WGCC appointing an interim Chairman, say that stuckee’s term only lasts long enough for the selection procedure to run and appoint a repalcement.

Thank you Sander,

let me just clarify the one thing. And apologies for not being clearer.

On 19/03/2019 12:36, Sander Steffann wrote:
> ... It is not clear to me whether the timelines of chair and vice-chair are linked, or whether they are/can be separate. In other words: are they both selected as a pair, or are their terms independent?

As proposed the terms are linked closely. This is because we expect that
a person who is Vice Chair may be nominated for Chair. We worked from
the community wish to both allow this easily and have a two term limit
for the Chair. The only way to do this without lots of complications is
to align the terms. It also makes sense in another way: The selection
committee can come up with a suitable pair of persons.

Please suggest text to make this clearer.

I'll wait for more comments/suggestions and allow some reflection time
before I react to the other comments.

Again: Suggesting concrete textual changes will be helpful.

Daniel

Hi Daniel,

> Again: Suggesting concrete textual changes will be helpful.

No worries! I will :)  I just wanted to understand before suggesting changes.

Cheers,
Sander

Hi,

Here are some suggestions:

> The RIPE Chair Selection Process
> 
> Hans Petter Holen
> Mirjam Kuehne
> Daniel Karrenberg
> Anna Wilson
> 
> ripe-yyy
> 
> Version 0.4
> 
> March 2019
> 
> 
> 
> Scope
> 
> This document describes the selection
> of the RIPE Chair and the RIPE Vice Chair.
> The role of RIPE Chair is described in ripe-714.
> The selection committee is described in ripe-xxx.
> 
> 
> Background
> 
> The first Chair of RIPE, Rob Blokzijl, was selected informally.
> The community did not establish a formal mechanism to select
> a person for this role before the present time.
> When Rob asked Hans Petter Holen to assume the role of RIPE Chair
> he also suggested that RIPE should establish
> a more formal selection procedure.
> This document describes that procedure.
> For details see Appendix G.
> 
> 
> Principles
> 
> The following broad principles emerged from an extensive community
> discussion:
> 
> A selection committee drawn from the community selects persons
> for the role of RIPE Chair for a period of five years with a two term limit.
> The selection committee is selected randomly from the community
> volunteers and modelled roughly after the IETF NomCom.
> There role of the RIPE Vice Chair should be re-established.

Text: The role of the RIPE Vice Chair should be re-established. The RIPE Chair and the RIPE Vice Chair are selected as a team and their terms are linked.

> The persons selected for the roles of RIPE Chair and RIPE Vice Chair
> must both be suitable for the role and have the support of the RIPE
> Community.
> For details about the community discussions see Appendix G.
> 
> 
> RIPE Meeting
> 
> A RIPE Meeting is an event where Internet Service Providers (ISPs),
> network operators and other interested parties gather
> to discuss issues of interest to the Internet community.
> This document assumes that there are two RIPE meetings each year.

Text: This document assumes that there are at least two RIPE meetings each year.

> The RIPE Chair
> 
> The role of RIPE Chair is described in ripe-714.
> This document describes the selection of a person for that role.
> We also describe the tasks of the current RIPE Chair in the process.
> 
> 
> The RIPE Vice Chair
> 
> This document re-introduces the role of RIPE Vice Chair.
> The purpose of that role is to provide continuity in
> case the RIPE Chair resigns or is not able to perform their role.
> The RIPE Chair may also delegate some of their duties
> to the RIPE Vice Chair as described in ripe-714.
> 
> 
> The RIPE Selection Committee
> 
> The RIPE Selection Committee (SelCom) selects persons for the
> RIPE Chair and RIPE Vice Chair roles.
> The selection committee consists of randomly selected
> community volunteers.
> The RIPE Selection Committee is described in ripe-xxx.
> 
> 
> The Working Group Chairs Collective
> 
> In exceptional circumstances this document
> calls on the RIPE working group chairs collective
> whenever timely action or consultation is needed.
> 
> 
> General Time-Line
> 
> The whole process takes roughly one year and two RIPE meetings.
> First a call for nominations is issued and the selection committee
> established.
> Then the list of nominees willing to be selected is published
> and the selection committee collects community input;
> this phase should include one RIPE meeting in order to provide the
> opportunity
> for personal interactions with the selection committee.
> We call this meeting the "consultation RIPE meeting".
> After the consultation meeting the selection committee publishes their
> selection.
> Finally, the newly selected persons take on their role;
> this happens at a RIPE meeting,
> so that the community can confirm their support for the selected persons.
> 
> 
> Eligibility and Term Limit
> 
> Any natural person is eligible for selection
> unless they have already been selected twice for their current role.

Q: So someone can be vice chair twice and chair twice. It explicitly mentions "selected twice for their current role", so a vice-chair who becomes chair at some point is still only selected to be vice-chair once, and can therefore still be selected two times as chair.

If that's not what we want then we need to change this a bit.

> It does not matter whether or not the terms are consecutive.
> 
> Term
> 
> The RIPE Chair and RIPE Vice Chair serve
> until the RIPE meeting closest to
> the fifth anniversary of taking on their role.
> 
> 
> Nominations
> 
> Around the fourth anniversary of taking on their role the RIPE Chair starts
> the new selection procedure by initiating the establishment  of the
> selection committee,
> making a call for nominations and setting a deadline for nominations
> about eight weeks prior to the subsequent RIPE meeting,
> the consultation RIPE meeting.
> 
> The SelCom checks the eligibility of the nominated persons,
> confirms whether the nominated persons wish to serve
> and publishes the list of nominees willing to serve
> no later than 2 weeks prior to the consultation RIPE meeting.
> 
> 
> Community Consultation
> 
> The SelCom actively solicits input from the entire community.
> It does so as much as possible in an open and transparent manner while
> adequately protecting personal information about the candidates.
> 
> 
> Selection
> 
> The SelCom then selects one person to serve as RIPE Chair and
> another person to serve as RIPE Vice Chair.
> The SelCom announces their selections no later than two weeks prior
> to the  following meeting, the transition RIPE meeting.
> 
> 
> Transition
> 
> At the transition RIPE meeting the newly selected persons take on their
> roles.
> 
> 
> Continuity
> 
> In case the RIPE Chair resigns the RIPE Vice Chair takes on the role of
> RIPE Chair and promptly initiates this selection procedure.
> In case the RIPE Vice Chair is not available either,
> the WG chairs collective selects a person to act as interim RIPE Chair and
> initiates this selection procedure.
> 
> In case the RIPE Vice Chair resigns the RIPE Chair selects a person to
> fill the role in consultation with the WG chairs collective.

Extra text: At the RIPE meeting the community can confirm their support for the selected RIPE Vice Chair.

> Pragmatism
> 
> This document is a guideline that explicitly allows ad-hoc deviations
> both for pragmatic reasons and in unforeseen circumstances
> without having to change this document each time.
> Any such deviations and the appropriate community involvement
> should be clearly documented each time.
> 
> 
> Acknowledgements
> 
> The authors acknowledge the contributions and efforts
> of everyone who participated in the community discussions
> that form the basis on which we were able to build this document.
> In particular Bijal Sanghani, Randy Bush, %%%% offered detailed
> suggestions and comments.

Cheers,
Sander

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ripe-chair-discuss <ripe-chair-discuss-bounces _at_ ripe _dot_ net> On Behalf Of
> Jim Reid
> Sent: Tuesday 19 March 2019 11:50
> To: Daniel Karrenberg <dfk _at_ ripe _dot_ net>
> Cc: Discussion of the Selection of the RIPE Chair  discuss _at_ ripe _dot_ net>
> Subject: Re: [ripe-chair-discuss] The RIPE Chair Selection Process - v0.4
> 
> I like this document a lot, especially the bit about using pragmatism and
> common sense. We need to see much more of this. [ie Keep asking
> ourselves “what would Rob do?”.]

I certainly agree here!
 
> One thing that worries me is the selection committee making the final
> decision. I think that has to be for the RIPE community as a whole. ie The
> selection committee recommends the candidate(s) and the community
> endorses that recommendation. There should be a cleaner separation of
> roles here.

And with this.

> It might also be an idea to insert some text after the bit about the WGCC
> appointing an interim Chairman, say that stuckee’s term only lasts long
> enough for the selection procedure to run and appoint a repalcement.

However here you have a procedural issue. If we've said that the Chair and Vice-Chair terms must be linked, either the stuckee is in place until the existing term ends, or the Vice-Chair term is truncated.

I would suggest that maybe this decision can be made by consultation between the Chair, Vice-Chair and WGCC, but we need to have something in place or we may end up with non co-terminating terms, which would be unnecessary complication?

Brian

Brian Nisbet 
Service Operations Manager
HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network
1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland
+35316609040 brian.nisbet _at_ heanet _dot_ ie www.heanet.ie
Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270

> On 20 Mar 2019, at 10:27, Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet _at_ heanet _dot_ ie> wrote:
> 
>> It might also be an idea to insert some text after the bit about the WGCC
>> appointing an interim Chairman, say that stuckee’s term only lasts long
>> enough for the selection procedure to run and appoint a repalcement.
> 
> However here you have a procedural issue. If we've said that the Chair and Vice-Chair terms must be linked, either the stuckee is in place until the existing term ends, or the Vice-Chair term is truncated.
> 
> I would suggest that maybe this decision can be made by consultation between the Chair, Vice-Chair and WGCC

I don’t like that at all Brian. It smells too much of secret deals in smoke-filled rooms.

> but we need to have something in place or we may end up with non co-terminating terms, which would be unnecessary complication?

My intention was to ensure there was a clear (and prompt) cut-off to the term of whoever got appointed on an interim basis. And a fairly quick invocation of the appointment procedure to install their “permanent” replacement. ie The interim appointee doesn’t get to stick around for more than a year or so.

Strawman suggestion: If the next scheduled run of the appointment process is (say) 4 years away, we run it immediately. Whoever replaces the WGCC stuckee then serves for 4 years to keep things in sync and the interim appointee serves until the appointment process finds their successor. If an interim appointment gets made (say) 2 years before the next scheduled run, they could stay in post until then.

We should be careful not to end up with a process which could mean the WGCC decides (in secret?) and appoints RIPE Chairmen who could essentially serve indefinitely. FWIW I could live with an interim appointment lasting until the next scheduled run of the process provided that short-term stuckee was not available for selection at that point.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Reid <jim _at_ rfc1035 _dot_ com>
> Sent: Wednesday 20 March 2019 12:00
> 
> > On 20 Mar 2019, at 10:27, Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet _at_ heanet _dot_ ie> wrote:
> >
> >> It might also be an idea to insert some text after the bit about the
> >> WGCC appointing an interim Chairman, say that stuckee’s term only
> >> lasts long enough for the selection procedure to run and appoint a
> repalcement.
> >
> > However here you have a procedural issue. If we've said that the Chair and
> Vice-Chair terms must be linked, either the stuckee is in place until the
> existing term ends, or the Vice-Chair term is truncated.
> >
> > I would suggest that maybe this decision can be made by consultation
> > between the Chair, Vice-Chair and WGCC
> 
> I don’t like that at all Brian. It smells too much of secret deals in smoke-filled
> rooms.

I continue to think you're in different rooms to me! 😊 But more seriously, ok.

> > but we need to have something in place or we may end up with non co-
> terminating terms, which would be unnecessary complication?
> 
> My intention was to ensure there was a clear (and prompt) cut-off to the
> term of whoever got appointed on an interim basis. And a fairly quick
> invocation of the appointment procedure to install their “permanent”
> replacement. ie The interim appointee doesn’t get to stick around for more
> than a year or so.
> 
> Strawman suggestion: If the next scheduled run of the appointment process
> is (say) 4 years away, we run it immediately. Whoever replaces the WGCC
> stuckee then serves for 4 years to keep things in sync and the interim
> appointee serves until the appointment process finds their successor. If an
> interim appointment gets made (say) 2 years before the next scheduled run,
> they could stay in post until then.
> 
> We should be careful not to end up with a process which could mean the
> WGCC decides (in secret?) and appoints RIPE Chairmen who could essentially
> serve indefinitely. FWIW I could live with an interim appointment lasting until
> the next scheduled run of the process provided that short-term stuckee was
> not available for selection at that point.

Well, none of this should be in secret. 

I'm genuinely trying to avoid unnecessary/additional process here, but I'm also trying to avoid out of sync terms.

I'd be ok with the above. I'd even be ok with saying that if the appointment is going to be for longer than 1 year it requires approval of the plenary and any period equal to or longer than 3 years it counts as one term? (That 3 can be 2, or 0, depending on what people think.)

I agree with what the reasons behind the quick appointment and, well, all of this, and I'm wary of engineering for edge cases, it just seems like one of the more possible ones as life has a nasty habit of not respecting arbitrary terms for volunteer positions.

Thanks,

Brian

Brian Nisbet 
Service Operations Manager
HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network
1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland
+35316609040 brian.nisbet _at_ heanet _dot_ ie www.heanet.ie
Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270 

Good morning all,

the strongest message I hear from those who spoke up so far:
"We are uncomfortable with the SelCom making the selection without a
formal step where the community explicitly supports the selected people."

Let me shed some more light on the thinking behind the document as
proposed:

The basis for this proposal is that the SelCom will work well and that
the transition will happen at a RIPE meeting.  The case where the SelCom
does something that clearly is not supported by the community will be
highly unusual.  Furthermore this will become clear at that transition
RIPE meeting and I expect that the community will not be ignored then.
But this will be far from normal and will likely not happen ever.
Normally there will be handing over ceremony, possibly involving a
specific artifact securely kept at an undisclosed location. ;-) At that
point I expect that there will be applause and that will be it.

Personally I have considered several versions of text that tried to deal
with the exceptional case without opening big opportunities for
disruptive attacks by a minority. I believe just saying nothing is better.

So if any of you remain concerned by the absence of a *formal* step
where the community accepts the SelCom outcome, I challenge you to
propose wording that achieves this while mitigating the risk of
disruption by a vocal minority.

This is the main point I hear so far. More on the minor points later.

More discussion is better

Daniel

> On 23 Mar 2019, at 07:45, Daniel Karrenberg <dfk _at_ ripe _dot_ net> wrote:
> 
> Let me shed some more light on the thinking behind the document as
> proposed:
> 
> The basis for this proposal is that the SelCom will work well and that
> the transition will happen at a RIPE meeting.

Daniel, my concerns are not about the SelCom. I'm sure they'll do The Right Thing if and when it gets formed. The point I was making is/was about the separation of roles and having appropriate checks and balances: ie SelCom recommends, community approves.

Your point about "opening big opportunities for disruptive attacks by a minority" is not unreasonable. However I doubt this sort of disruption could derail a consensus judgement of the RIPE community.

Since you asked for text, how about the following:

The Selcom will recommend one candidate for RIPE Chairman and one candidate for Vice-Chairman. The RIPE community will be asked to endorse those recommendations. If there is no clear consensus for a candidate, their recommendation will be withdrawn and the Selcom will be responsible for choosing an alternative. This process of recommendation and approval repeats until an acceptable candidate is found.

On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 12:59:06PM +0000, Jim Reid wrote:

Jim, All

> The Selcom will recommend one candidate for RIPE Chairman and one
> candidate for Vice-Chairman. The RIPE community will be asked to
> endorse those recommendations. If there is no clear consensus for a
> candidate, their recommendation will be withdrawn and the Selcom will
> be responsible for choosing an alternative. This process of
> recommendation and approval repeats until an acceptable candidate is
> found.

Just to clarify: since this could end up in the infinite loop, is the
Pragmatism rule is going to be applied here?

Piotr

-- 
Piotr Strzyżewski
Silesian University of Technology, Computer Centre
Gliwice, Poland

On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 11:51:13AM +0100, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:

Dear All,

Great document. Just one comment inline.

> General Time-Line
> 
> The whole process takes roughly one year and two RIPE meetings.
> First a call for nominations is issued and the selection committee
> established.
> Then the list of nominees willing to be selected is published
> and the selection committee collects community input;
> this phase should include one RIPE meeting in order to provide the
> opportunity
> for personal interactions with the selection committee.
> We call this meeting the "consultation RIPE meeting".
> After the consultation meeting the selection committee publishes their

s/consultation meeting/consultation RIPE meeting

> selection.
> Finally, the newly selected persons take on their role;
> this happens at a RIPE meeting,
> so that the community can confirm their support for the selected persons.

Piotr

-- 
Piotr Strzyżewski
Silesian University of Technology, Computer Centre
Gliwice, Poland

[long, but lots of real content, promise! ;-)]

Jim,

To be sure: I value your contribution and understand your concern. I
just do not agree with your proposed process and the text you propose.

Consensus is not the right method to select persons. It works, somewhat,
for roles that are mostly work and little perceived glory/power.
It *does not* work for roles that have a lot of perceived glory/power
and are therefore likely to be contested.

Likely scenario: there are two credible persons for a role. The one not
selected, and more importantly some of their supporters, will not agree
with the selection. This may be aggravated by the fact that the person
who *was* selected is disliked by some in that group. Consensus is
therefore extremely unlikely. Achieving consensus supposes that most
supporters of the not-selected person will be wise enough to accept and
support the selection they did not wish to see happen. Experience shows
that his is not likely. This means that, if consensus is required, a
vocal minority can block the selection. Furthermore: who would have to
make that consensus call? The current chair who may be up for
re-selection? Then, how likely is it that the same SelCom will come to a
different selection?  Again: this scenario is likely to happen and
consensus will not work here!

Therefore we should emulate the IETF and *not* use consensus in the process.

If this convinces you and current proposed process is now OK for you,
read no further. ;-)

Speaking about emulating the IETF: the IETF uses confirmation of NomCom
selections by other bodies. For instance, the selection of people for
the IAB is confirmed by the ISOC board. I have been there and done that.
As chairman of the trustees I made every effort to avoid *any* formal
discussion on these confirmations even within this small group of
sensible people. But if there had been any doubt about the NomCom
*process* we *would* have discussed that at length and I would like to
think we would have taken reasonable action. Luckily during my service
on the board all confirmations happened within seconds of meeting time.

Looking around for a credible confirming body within the RIPE
'ecosystem' the only one that comes to my mind is the RIPE NCC board. We
could propose a process by which the RIPE NCC board confirms the SelCom
selections. That would also nicely solve a number of challenges with the
SelCom process itself. However this would come at a price: First, we
would deepen the entanglement between RIPE and RIPE NCC; something which
we have avoided so far as much as possible. Second, it could easily be
spun/misunderstood as the RIPE NCC *selecting* the RIPE chair or at
least having undue influence on the selection. And third, it would make
members of the RIPE NCC board a-priori unavailable for serving on the
SelCom or to put themselves forward for any role the SelCom make the
selection for. To my mind this price could be acceptable. Of course this
also assumes that the RIPE NCC board can be convinced to accept the task.

Would this process provide the checks and balances you seek?

If yes, let's start to see if such a proposal could get community
consensus and let's convince the NCC board to do it. I volunteer to
propose language and it would help with finishing the SelCom proposal
too. How about that? ;-)

If you still insist on using consensus, your proposed text needs to be
more specific about at least

- how and by whom consensus is determined,
- the timeline for the re-selection(s),
- how we deal with the obvious risk of an infinite loop, and
- continuity, e.g. who fills the roles in the meantime and what if they
are no longer willing or available.

Can others please speak up so that this does not become a dialogue but a
community discussion? And: text please!

Nobody said this was easy .... if it was Rob would have 'just done it'.

Daniel

On 23/03/2019 16:59, Piotr Strzyzewski wrote:
> ... Just to clarify: since this could end up in the infinite loop, is the
> Pragmatism rule is going to be applied here? ...

Spot on! How would pragmatism work here?

Also: See the long message I just sent.

Daniel

On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 05:17:08PM +0100, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:

Daniel,

> Looking around for a credible confirming body within the RIPE
> 'ecosystem' the only one that comes to my mind is the RIPE NCC board. We

[cut]

> Of course this
> also assumes that the RIPE NCC board can be convinced to accept the task.

[cut]

> Can others please speak up so that this does not become a dialogue but a
> community discussion? And: text please!

I'm speaking out ;-) But, I'm in doubt here. As EB member I would like
to refrain from discussing this particular idea, but would like to
encourage the others to comment on in.

Piotr

-- 
Piotr Strzyżewski
Silesian University of Technology, Computer Centre
Gliwice, Poland

On 23/03/2019 17:07, Piotr Strzyzewski wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 05:17:08PM +0100, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
> 
> Daniel,
> 
>> Looking around for a credible confirming body within the RIPE
>> 'ecosystem' the only one that comes to my mind is the RIPE NCC board. We
> 
> [cut]
> 
>> Of course this
>> also assumes that the RIPE NCC board can be convinced to accept the task.
> 
> [cut]
> 
>> Can others please speak up so that this does not become a dialogue but a
>> community discussion? And: text please!
> 
> I'm speaking out ;-) But, I'm in doubt here. As EB member I would like
> to refrain from discussing this particular idea, but would like to
> encourage the others to comment on in.

As an outgoing member of the EB that doesn't intend to restand I don't
have any irons in the fire here. I think this is a totally inappropriate
role for the EB. The EB is there to ensure that the financial affairs of
the RIPE NCC are conducted in a sober and businesslike fashion. To be
the confirming body is completely outside its remit.

Nigel

On 25/03/2019 13:03, Nigel Titley wrote:
> ...

> As an outgoing member of the EB that doesn't intend to restand I don't
> have any irons in the fire here. I think this is a totally inappropriate
> role for the EB. The EB is there to ensure that the financial affairs of
> the RIPE NCC are conducted in a sober and businesslike fashion. To be
> the confirming body is completely outside its remit.
> 
> Nigel

[no seasonal joke!]

Nigel,

Of course you are correct. The role of RIPE NCC Executive Board (EB)
is to oversee the RIPE NCC and its finances in particular. So currently
any role in the RIPE Chair selection process is outside the remit of the EB.

However, the RIPE community could *ask* the EB to take on an additional
role. That role would be to oversee the RIPE Chair selection process.
This would *not* mean that the EB has any part in selecting the RIPE
Chair. It would mean that the EB would appoint the non-voting SelCom
chairperson, deal with process challenges and finally confirm that the
selection process has been run correctly.

Jim Reid's concerns are a good indication that we need such a role.
I suggest the EB because I cannot see another existing body that could
fulfil it in a credible way.

The IETF 'uses' the ISOC board of trustees (BoT) for this role in the
IAB selection process. The ISOC BoT has a primary role that is similar
to the EB: oversee ISOC and in particular its finances. Yet the ISOC BoT
has agreed to take on the additional role of overseeing the IAB
selection process.

I believe that this way of doing things would work for us as well.
It would make my task of adapting the IETF process to our needs much
easier if we would at least contemplate this.

I am currently working on the document that describes the SelCom. My
plan is to write in a role for the RIPE NCC EB as described here. It
would be very useful for me to hear from you, *and from others*, whether
this has any chance of at least being considered. Otherwise I would have
to become much more inventive than I am currently comfortable with. ;-)

Of course I remain curious about and open to other ideas on how to deal
with process challenges and the concerns expressed by Jim.

Best

Daniel

On 23/03/2019 18:07, Piotr Strzyzewski wrote:
> ... I'm speaking out ;-) But, I'm in doubt here. As EB member I would like
> to refrain from discussing this particular idea, but would like to
> encourage the others to comment on in. ...

Yes please. It would be encouraging to hear from more people.

Daniel

PS: Personally I strongly believe that anyone in the RIPE community
should be able to speak up here. If some  have roles that are relevant
to the discussion they should just be open about them, like you are!
I personally point out in every draft I am both one of the RIPE founders
and now on the staff of the RIPE NCC. That should be sufficient to put
my contributions into perspective. It would be a great loss to all of us
if you kept quiet just because you have a role on the RIPE NCC EB. It is
just important to note that like I do not speak for the RIPE NCC here,
you do not speak for the EB, unless you do of course. ;-)

Daniel

Daniel

On 01/04/2019 11:20, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:

> 
> However, the RIPE community could *ask* the EB to take on an additional
> role. That role would be to oversee the RIPE Chair selection process.
> This would *not* mean that the EB has any part in selecting the RIPE
> Chair. It would mean that the EB would appoint the non-voting SelCom
> chairperson, deal with process challenges and finally confirm that the
> selection process has been run correctly.

Certainly the community could ask the EB and I suspect that the EB would
accept the challenge.

> Jim Reid's concerns are a good indication that we need such a role.
> I suggest the EB because I cannot see another existing body that could
> fulfil it in a credible way.

Yes, I think Jim's concerns are worthy of being addressed. And, yes, I
agree with you that there doesn't seem to be an existing body that even
slightly fits the bill. So on the principle of of Non-Proliferation of
Essentially Single Purpose Internet Bodies and for sound ecological
reasons we probably should try and re-use the one's we've got. I'll
concede you the point, although it gives me some misgivings, and there
is enough degree of indirection that likely no harm will be done.

> The IETF 'uses' the ISOC board of trustees (BoT) for this role in the
> IAB selection process. The ISOC BoT has a primary role that is similar
> to the EB: oversee ISOC and in particular its finances. Yet the ISOC BoT
> has agreed to take on the additional role of overseeing the IAB
> selection process.
> 
> I believe that this way of doing things would work for us as well.
> It would make my task of adapting the IETF process to our needs much
> easier if we would at least contemplate this.

Agreed.

> I am currently working on the document that describes the SelCom. My
> plan is to write in a role for the RIPE NCC EB as described here. It
> would be very useful for me to hear from you, *and from others*, whether
> this has any chance of at least being considered. Otherwise I would have
> to become much more inventive than I am currently comfortable with. ;-)

No more single-use bodies. There are enough floating around in the
Internet Ocean as it is. I'll give you my support.

> Of course I remain curious about and open to other ideas on how to deal
> with process challenges and the concerns expressed by Jim.

Nigel

On 01/04/2019 12:43, Nigel Titley wrote:

> ... No more single-use bodies. There are enough floating around in the
> Internet Ocean as it is. I'll give you my support.

Thank you for that support. I'll keep drafting then. Stay tuned ...

Daniel

On Mon, Apr 01, 2019 at 12:30:05PM +0200, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
> On 23/03/2019 18:07, Piotr Strzyzewski wrote:
> > ... I'm speaking out ;-) But, I'm in doubt here. As EB member I would like
> > to refrain from discussing this particular idea, but would like to
> > encourage the others to comment on in. ...
> 
> Yes please. It would be encouraging to hear from more people.
> 
> Daniel
> 
> PS: Personally I strongly believe that anyone in the RIPE community
> should be able to speak up here. If some  have roles that are relevant
> to the discussion they should just be open about them, like you are!
> I personally point out in every draft I am both one of the RIPE founders
> and now on the staff of the RIPE NCC. That should be sufficient to put
> my contributions into perspective. It would be a great loss to all of us
> if you kept quiet just because you have a role on the RIPE NCC EB. It is
> just important to note that like I do not speak for the RIPE NCC here,
> you do not speak for the EB, unless you do of course. ;-)

Taking above into consideration, I have to say that I share the Nigel's
point of view about "No more single-use bodies" and I support the idea
about the role of RIPE NCC board, which you have described.

Piotr

-- 
Piotr Strzyżewski
Silesian University of Technology, Computer Centre
Gliwice, Poland

On 20/03/2019 11:27, Brian Nisbet wrote:
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ripe-chair-discuss <ripe-chair-discuss-bounces _at_ ripe _dot_ net> On Behalf Of
>> Jim Reid
>> Sent: Tuesday 19 March 2019 11:50
>> To: Daniel Karrenberg <dfk _at_ ripe _dot_ net>
>> Cc: Discussion of the Selection of the RIPE Chair > discuss _at_ ripe _dot_ net>
>> Subject: Re: [ripe-chair-discuss] The RIPE Chair Selection Process - v0.4
>>
>> I like this document a lot, especially the bit about using pragmatism and
>> common sense. We need to see much more of this. [ie Keep asking
>> ourselves “what would Rob do?”.]
> 
> I certainly agree here!
>  
>> One thing that worries me is the selection committee making the final
>> decision. I think that has to be for the RIPE community as a whole. ie The
>> selection committee recommends the candidate(s) and the community
>> endorses that recommendation. There should be a cleaner separation of
>> roles here.
> 
> And with this.
> 
>> It might also be an idea to insert some text after the bit about the WGCC
>> appointing an interim Chairman, say that stuckee’s term only lasts long
>> enough for the selection procedure to run and appoint a repalcement.
> 
> However here you have a procedural issue. If we've said that the Chair and Vice-Chair terms must be linked, either the stuckee is in place until the existing term ends, or the Vice-Chair term is truncated.
> 
> I would suggest that maybe this decision can be made by consultation between the Chair, Vice-Chair and WGCC, but we need to have something in place or we may end up with non co-terminating terms, which would be unnecessary complication?
> 
> Brian


I have struggled with this and come to the conclusion that it is easiest
to truncate the Vice Chair's term when the chair is no longer available.
In any case the selection procedure has to be initiated promptly. The
current text says as much. Any help appreciated with saying it more clearly.

In the corner case of both Chair and Vice Chair not being available the
text calls the stuckee Interim RIPE Chair for a number of reasons
including transparency to the outside world and preventing the stuckee
from 'using up' a term for the purposes of the two term limit. We will
that make that explicit in the next version.

Is there anything else I am missing in this regard?

Daniel

Below you find version 0.5 based on the discussions since 0.4.The diff
is first and the format has changed from text to markdown.

We are now working on the companion document 'ripe-xxx' also
based on recent discussions.

As always, comments welcome.

Daniel


--------



10c10
< Version 0.4
---
> Version 0.5
12c12
< March 2019
---
> April 2019


64c66
< We also describe the tasks of the current RIPE Chair in the process.
---
> We also describe the tasks of the current RIPE Chair in the selection
process.

70c72
< The purpose of that role is to provide continuity in
---
> The purpose of this role is to provide continuity in

81c83
< community volunteers.
---
> community volunteers who vote on the selection, as well as a chair,
liaisons and advisors who do not vote on the selection.

94c96
< The whole process takes roughly one year and two RIPE meetings.
---
> The whole selection process takes roughly one year and two RIPE meetings.

103c105
< After the consultation meeting the selection committee publishes their
---
> After the consultation RIPE meeting the selection committee publishes
their

119c121
< until the RIPE meeting closest to
---
> concurrent terms until the RIPE meeting closest to

126,128c128,129
< the new selection procedure by initiating the establishment  of the
selection committee,
< making a call for nominations and setting a deadline for nominations
< about eight weeks prior to the subsequent RIPE meeting,
---
> the new selection procedure by initiating the establishment of the SelCom.
> The chair of the SelCom publishes a call for nominations and sets a
deadline for nominations about eight weeks prior to the subsequent RIPE
meeting,

163,164c164,166
< the WG chairs collective selects a person to act as interim RIPE Chair and
< initiates this selection procedure.
---
> the WG chairs collective promptly initiates this selection procedure
and selects a person to act as interim RIPE Chair.
> The service as interim RIPE Chair does not count as a term for the
purposes of the term limit above.
>

190c192
< Hans Petter Holen is a RIPE participant since RIPE30
---
> Hans Petter Holen is a RIPE participant since RIPE22
195c197
< Mirjam Kühne is a RIPE participant since RIPE29
---
> Mirjam Kühne is a RIPE participant since RIPE19




------




# The RIPE Chair Selection Process

Hans Petter Holen
Mirjam Kühne
Daniel Karrenberg
Anna Wilson

ripe-yyy

Version 0.5

April 2019


## Scope

This document describes the selection
of the RIPE Chair and the RIPE Vice Chair.
The role of RIPE Chair is described in
[ripe-174](https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-714).
The selection committee is described in ripe-xxx.


## Background

The first Chair of RIPE, Rob Blokzijl, was selected informally.
The community did not establish a formal mechanism to select
a person for this role before the present time.
When Rob asked Hans Petter Holen to assume the role of RIPE Chair
he also suggested that RIPE should establish
a more formal selection procedure.
This document describes that procedure.
For details see Appendix G.


## Principles

The following broad principles emerged from an extensive community
discussion:

- A selection committee drawn from the community selects persons
for the role of RIPE Chair for a period of five years with a two term limit.
- The selection committee is selected randomly from the community
volunteers and modelled roughly after the IETF NomCom.
- There role of the RIPE Vice Chair should be re-established.
- The persons selected for the roles of RIPE Chair and RIPE Vice Chair
must both be suitable for the role and have the support of the RIPE
Community.

For details about the community discussions see Appendix G.

## Glossary

### RIPE Meeeting

A RIPE Meeting is an event where Internet Service Providers (ISPs),
network operators and other interested parties gather
to discuss issues of interest to the Internet community.
This document assumes that there are two RIPE meetings each year.

### The RIPE Chair

The role of RIPE Chair is described in
[ripe-714](https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-714).
This document describes the selection of a person for that role.
We also describe the tasks of the current RIPE Chair in the selection
process.


### The RIPE Vice Chair

This document re-introduces the role of RIPE Vice Chair.
The purpose of this role is to provide continuity in
case the RIPE Chair resigns or is not able to perform their role.
The RIPE Chair may also delegate some of their duties
to the RIPE Vice Chair as described in ripe-714.


### The RIPE Selection Committee

The RIPE Selection Committee (SelCom) selects persons for the
RIPE Chair and RIPE Vice Chair roles.
The selection committee consists of randomly selected
community volunteers who vote on the selection, as well as a chair,
liaisons and advisors who do not vote on the selection.
The RIPE Selection Committee is described in ripe-xxx.


### The Working Group Chairs Collective

In exceptional circumstances this document
calls on the RIPE working group chairs collective
whenever timely action or consultation is needed.


## General Time-Line

The whole selection process takes roughly one year and two RIPE meetings.
First a call for nominations is issued and the selection committee
established.
Then the list of nominees willing to be selected is published
and the selection committee collects community input;
this phase should include one RIPE meeting in order to rovide the
opportunity
for personal interactions with the selection committee.
We call this meeting the "consultation RIPE meeting".
After the consultation RIPE meeting the selection committee publishes their
selection.
Finally, the newly selected persons take on their role;
this happens at a RIPE meeting,
so that the community can confirm their support for the selected persons.


## Eligibility and Term Limit

Any natural person is eligible for selection
unless they have already been selected twice for their current role.
It does not matter whether or not the terms are consecutive.

## Term

The RIPE Chair and RIPE Vice Chair serve
concurrent terms until the RIPE meeting closest to
the fifth anniversary of taking on their role.


## Nominations

Around the fourth anniversary of taking on their role the RIPE Chair starts
the new selection procedure by initiating the establishment of the SelCom.
The chair of the SelCom publishes a call for nominations and sets a
deadline for nominations about eight weeks prior to the subsequent RIPE
meeting,
the consultation RIPE meeting.

The SelCom checks the eligibility of the nominated persons,
confirms whether the nominated persons wish to serve
and publishes the list of nominees willing to serve
no later than 2 weeks prior to the consultation RIPE meeting.


## Community Consultation

The SelCom actively solicits input from the entire community.
It does so as much as possible in an open and transparent manner while
adequately protecting personal information about the candidates.


## Selection

The SelCom then selects one person to serve as RIPE Chair and
another person to serve as RIPE Vice Chair.
The SelCom announces their selections no later than two weeks prior
to the  following meeting, the transition RIPE meeting.


## Transition

At the transition RIPE meeting the newly selected persons take on their
roles.


## Continuity

In case the RIPE Chair resigns the RIPE Vice Chair takes on the role of
RIPE Chair and promptly initiates this selection procedure.
In case the RIPE Vice Chair is not available either,
the WG chairs collective promptly initiates this selection procedure and
selects a person to act as interim RIPE Chair.
The service as interim RIPE Chair does not count as a term for the
purposes of the term limit above.


In case the RIPE Vice Chair resigns the RIPE Chair selects a person to
fill the role in consultation with the WG chairs collective.


## Pragmatism

This document is a guideline that explicitly allows ad-hoc deviations
both for pragmatic reasons and in unforeseen circumstances
without having to change this document each time.
Any such deviations and the appropriate community involvement
should be clearly documented each time.


## Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the contributions and efforts
of everyone who participated in the community discussions
that form the basis on which we were able to build this document.
In particular Bijal Sanghani, Randy Bush, %%%% offered detailed
suggestions and comments.


## Appendix A - About the Authors

Hans Petter Holen is a RIPE participant since RIPE22
and the present chairman of RIPE.
Rob Blokzijl asked him to ensure that the community establishes the
procedure described here.

Mirjam Kühne is a RIPE participant since RIPE19
and a member of the RIPE NCC staff.
She took on the task of supporting the community and Hans Petter in this
effort.

Daniel Karrenberg is one of the RIPE founders
and a member of the RIPE NCC staff.
He took on the job of editing this document
and writing the bulk of the text.

Anna Wilson is a RIPE participant since RIPE31.
She has led several fairly  intense community discussions
about this procedure.


## Appendix G - Document Genesis

In 2014, during the closing plenary at RIPE 68, Rob Blokzijl announced
that he would be stepping down as RIPE Chair and handing the role over
to the current chair, Hans Petter Holen.

This decision was well supported by the RIPE community. However, it was
clear that the process for selecting a future RIPE Chair should be open,
transparent and endorsed by the RIPE community as a whole. At the time
of the handover, Rob urged the community to establish such a process
under its new chair.

In 2016, Hans Petter started the discussion by publishing an article on
RIPE Labs:


At the same time an open discussion mailing list was set up:


At RIPE 76 in May 2018, Anna Wilson (HEANET, Ireland) led a community
discussion () to gather input
on the elements that form the basis of a proposal which was published on
RIPE Labs in July 2018:


Based on the discussion on the ripe-chair-discuss mailing list, another
RIPE Labs article was published documenting the consensus at the time:


After that more people shared their input on the mailing list which led
to another face-to-face discussion, again led by Anna Wilson during the
closing plenary at RIPE 77 in October 2018
().

During that meeting it was decided to first establish consensus on
a description of the role of the RIPE Chair. This has been published
as ripe-714: 

A couple of minor, but fairly important twitches to the English, below.

On 08/04/2019 16:04, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:

> ## Principles
> 
> The following broad principles emerged from an extensive community
> discussion:
> 
> - A selection committee drawn from the community selects persons
> for the role of RIPE Chair for a period of five years with a two term limit.
> - The selection committee is selected randomly from the community
> volunteers and modelled roughly after the IETF NomCom.
> - There role of the RIPE Vice Chair should be re-established.

There -> The

> - The persons selected for the roles of RIPE Chair and RIPE Vice Chair
> must both be suitable for the role and have the support of the RIPE
> Community.
> 
> For details about the community discussions see Appendix G.
> 
> ## Glossary
> 
> ### RIPE Meeeting
> 
> A RIPE Meeting is an event where Internet Service Providers (ISPs),
> network operators and other interested parties gather
> to discuss issues of interest to the Internet community.
> This document assumes that there are two RIPE meetings each year.
> 
> ### The RIPE Chair
> 
> The role of RIPE Chair is described in
> [ripe-714](https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-714).
> This document describes the selection of a person for that role.
> We also describe the tasks of the current RIPE Chair in the selection
> process.
> 
> 
> ### The RIPE Vice Chair
> 
> This document re-introduces the role of RIPE Vice Chair.
> The purpose of this role is to provide continuity in
> case the RIPE Chair resigns or is not able to perform their role.
> The RIPE Chair may also delegate some of their duties
> to the RIPE Vice Chair as described in ripe-714.
> 
> 
> ### The RIPE Selection Committee
> 
> The RIPE Selection Committee (SelCom) selects persons for the
> RIPE Chair and RIPE Vice Chair roles.
> The selection committee consists of randomly selected
> community volunteers who vote on the selection, as well as a chair,
> liaisons and advisors who do not vote on the selection.
> The RIPE Selection Committee is described in ripe-xxx.
> 
> 
> ### The Working Group Chairs Collective
> 
> In exceptional circumstances this document
> calls on the RIPE working group chairs collective
> whenever timely action or consultation is needed.
> 
> 
> ## General Time-Line
> 
> The whole selection process takes roughly one year and two RIPE meetings.
> First a call for nominations is issued and the selection committee
> established.
> Then the list of nominees willing to be selected is published
> and the selection committee collects community input;
> this phase should include one RIPE meeting in order to rovide the

rovide -> provide

> opportunity
> for personal interactions with the selection committee.
> We call this meeting the "consultation RIPE meeting".
> After the consultation RIPE meeting the selection committee publishes their
> selection.
> Finally, the newly selected persons take on their role;

(Just in passing, admiration for this beautifully placed ';')

> this happens at a RIPE meeting,
> so that the community can confirm their support for the selected persons.
> 
> 
> ## Eligibility and Term Limit
> 
> Any natural person is eligible for selection
> unless they have already been selected twice for their current role.
> It does not matter whether or not the terms are consecutive.
> 
> ## Term
> 
> The RIPE Chair and RIPE Vice Chair serve
> concurrent terms until the RIPE meeting closest to
> the fifth anniversary of taking on their role.
> 
> 
> ## Nominations
> 
> Around the fourth anniversary of taking on their role the RIPE Chair starts
> the new selection procedure by initiating the establishment of the SelCom.
> The chair of the SelCom publishes a call for nominations and sets a
> deadline for nominations about eight weeks prior to the subsequent RIPE
> meeting,
> the consultation RIPE meeting.
> 
> The SelCom checks the eligibility of the nominated persons,
> confirms whether the nominated persons wish to serve
> and publishes the list of nominees willing to serve
> no later than 2 weeks prior to the consultation RIPE meeting.
> 
> 
> ## Community Consultation
> 
> The SelCom actively solicits input from the entire community.
> It does so as much as possible in an open and transparent manner while
> adequately protecting personal information about the candidates.
> 
> 
> ## Selection
> 
> The SelCom then selects one person to serve as RIPE Chair and
> another person to serve as RIPE Vice Chair.
> The SelCom announces their selections no later than two weeks prior
> to the  following meeting, the transition RIPE meeting.
> 
> 
> ## Transition
> 
> At the transition RIPE meeting the newly selected persons take on their
> roles.
> 
> 
> ## Continuity
> 
> In case the RIPE Chair resigns the RIPE Vice Chair takes on the role of
> RIPE Chair and promptly initiates this selection procedure.

This really should be "If the RIPE Chair..." or possibly "In the case of
the RIPE Chair resigning...".

This is a classic case of the Dutch/German "In case" which riddles RIPE
NCC documentation. And here it is wrong, giving a different meaning to
sentence.

> In case the RIPE Vice Chair is not available either,

Likewise here, it should be "If the RIPE Vice chair..." or "In the case
of the RIPE Vice Chair not being available...".

> the WG chairs collective promptly initiates this selection procedure and
> selects a person to act as interim RIPE Chair.
> The service as interim RIPE Chair does not count as a term for the
> purposes of the term limit above.
> 
> 
> In case the RIPE Vice Chair resigns the RIPE Chair selects a person to

Again, "If the RIPE Vice Chair..." or "In the case of the RIPE Vice
Chair resigning..."

> fill the role in consultation with the WG chairs collective.
> 
> 
> ## Pragmatism
> 
> This document is a guideline that explicitly allows ad-hoc deviations
> both for pragmatic reasons and in unforeseen circumstances
> without having to change this document each time.
> Any such deviations and the appropriate community involvement
> should be clearly documented each time.
> 
> 
> ## Acknowledgements
> 
> The authors acknowledge the contributions and efforts
> of everyone who participated in the community discussions
> that form the basis on which we were able to build this document.
> In particular Bijal Sanghani, Randy Bush, %%%% offered detailed
> suggestions and comments.

"%%%%" ?

And of course I make my usual tongue in cheek comment that a "chair" is
a piece of furniture. The correct word is "chairman" regardless of gender.

Otherwise, a nice piece of work. Thanks to Daniel et al for all their
hard work.

All the best

Nigel

Daniel,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Karrenberg <dfk _at_ ripe _dot_ net>
> Sent: Monday 8 April 2019 11:43
> To: Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet _at_ heanet _dot_ ie>
> Cc: Discussion of the Selection of the RIPE Chair  discuss _at_ ripe _dot_ net>
> Subject: Re: [ripe-chair-discuss] The RIPE Chair Selection Process - v0.4
> 
> 
> 
> On 20/03/2019 11:27, Brian Nisbet wrote:
> >
> > I would suggest that maybe this decision can be made by consultation
> between the Chair, Vice-Chair and WGCC, but we need to have something in
> place or we may end up with non co-terminating terms, which would be
> unnecessary complication?
> >
> > Brian
> 
> 
> I have struggled with this and come to the conclusion that it is easiest to
> truncate the Vice Chair's term when the chair is no longer available.
> In any case the selection procedure has to be initiated promptly. The current
> text says as much. Any help appreciated with saying it more clearly.

I think that is the most straightforward approach and certainly I agree that the term of the Chair should be the guide here, and it is the resignation of the Chair (outwith the normal cycle) that initiates the selection procedure. To me that sentence is clear, but other eyes always good. However...

> In the corner case of both Chair and Vice Chair not being available the text
> calls the stuckee Interim RIPE Chair for a number of reasons including
> transparency to the outside world and preventing the stuckee from 'using
> up' a term for the purposes of the two term limit. We will that make that
> explicit in the next version.
> 
> Is there anything else I am missing in this regard?

This makes sense to me, but I would keep the order of things the same in the two continuity sentences. So to match the sequence of the Vice Chair taking over and kicking off the selection procedure, I would amend the following line to be:

"In case the RIPE Vice Chair is not available either, the WG chairs collective promptly selects a person to act as interim RIPE Chair and initiates this selection procedure."

As written the line could be interpreted that the WGCC initiates a procedure that selects an interim Chair etc.

A minor point, but again, keeping the order the same makes more sense in my head. But the promptly is the thing.

Thanks for your continued work on this,

Brian