RIPE Chair Discussion List

Dear all,

Probably like many others, I haven't been following the RIPE Chair 
nomination process as closely as it has deserved over the last number of 
months.

At the moment, the lineup looks like this:

- the current RIPE chair is now - with safeguards in place - the RIPE 
NCC managing director.

- one of the candidates is the previous chair of the RIPE NCC executive 
board.

- one of the candidates is a current employee of the RIPE NCC.

- the chair of the nom-com is a current employee of the RIPE NCC.

This isn't a statement of lack of confidence in any of the people 
concerned, either individually or collectively, but it looks troubling 
from the point of view of governance practices.

In the future, anyone should be able to look back at the nomination 
process and with full hindsight, feel comfortable that it was sound.  I 
am not completely sure that we are in this position right now.

Nick

On 12 May 2020, at 22:46, Nick Hilliard wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> Probably like many others, I haven't been following the RIPE Chair 
> nomination process as closely as it has deserved over the last number 
> of months.
>
> At the moment, the lineup looks like this:
>
> - the current RIPE chair is now - with safeguards in place - the RIPE 
> NCC managing director.
>
> - one of the candidates is the previous chair of the RIPE NCC 
> executive board.
>
> - one of the candidates is a current employee of the RIPE NCC.
>
> - the chair of the nom-com is a current employee of the RIPE NCC.
>
> This isn't a statement of lack of confidence in any of the people 
> concerned, either individually or collectively, but it looks troubling 
> from the point of view of governance practices.
>
> In the future, anyone should be able to look back at the nomination 
> process and with full hindsight, feel comfortable that it was sound.  
> I am not completely sure that we are in this position right now.
>
> Nick

Nick,

Let me first respond in my role as chair of the 2020 RIPE Nominating 
Committee. I will later respond as a community member.

The nomination process is soundly executed. As you are aware the RIPE 
Community has spent years to devise this process. The result is the most 
formal process in RIPE to date. It is therefore important that we follow 
it. To address your points:

The current RIPE chair ad-interim had been nominated but has since 
informed the NomCom that he no longer wishes to be considered. So he is 
completely outside the process now.

ripe-727 says: “Any natural person is eligible for selection unless 
they have already been selected twice for the role they are nominated 
for. …”. The NomCom has determined that all the nominees are 
eligible.

ripe-728 defines the selection and the duties of the NomCom Chair.
“The chair of the RIPE NCC Executive Board appoints the Chair, who 
must meet the same requirements for membership in the nominating 
committee as a voting volunteer.”
Prior to accepting the appointment I have received assurances from RIPE 
NCC management that convinced me that I would be able to freely and 
independently execute the duties of that role. In particular “The 
Chair must be thoroughly familiar with the rules and guidance indicated 
throughout this document. The Chair must ensure the nominating committee 
completes its assigned duties in a manner that is consistent with this 
document. … The nominating committee Chair must agree to invest the 
time necessary to ensure that the nominating committee completes its 
assigned duties and to perform in the best interests of the RIPE 
community in that role.”

All the steps in the process have been announced on the ripe mailing 
list in a timely manner. In addition the NomCom have set up a blog 
published background information on RIPE Labs.

If you have any specific doubts about the execution of the RIPE Chair 
selection procedure, please bring them to my attention or the attention 
of the community so that we can address them.

Daniel

Nick,

in addition to my response as the NomCom chair here is my personal 
response to your thoughts:

On 12 May 2020, at 22:46, Nick Hilliard wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> Probably like many others, I haven't been following the RIPE Chair 
> nomination process as closely as it has deserved over the last number 
> of months.

That can happen and it is OK to share thoughts about anything. The RIPE 
Chair selection process has been discussed for years and is running for 
more than half a year now. I just wish you had spoken up at a time when 
making changes was possible: either during development of the process or 
at times when execution of the process allowed review or during the 
future review of the first run of the process based on the final report 
of the NomCom.

I have the impression that you mix RIPE NCC corporate governance with 
RIPE community governance. If we were talking about selecting the RIPE 
NCC board I would be the first to agree that RIPE NCC employees need to 
have absolutely no formal part in it. But we are talking about RIPE 
community governance here. They are related but separate.

>
> At the moment, the lineup looks like this:
>
> - the current RIPE chair is now - with safeguards in place - the RIPE 
> NCC managing director.

I cannot see how this is relevant. Hans Petter has no part in the 
selection process of his successor(s).

> - one of the candidates is the previous chair of the RIPE NCC 
> executive board.

Why should we a-priori exclude someone who has served before in a 
different capacity from being considered as RIPE Chair.

> - one of the candidates is a current employee of the RIPE NCC.

Why should we require someone who is nominated to change their 
employment in order to be even considered? Would that be reasonable? 
Isn’t it important to find the best people for the role first, address 
possible conflicts-of interest second and ask them to resolve those only 
after we are sure we wish to select them? I do not expect the NomCom to 
select someone unless it is convinced that the selected candidates 
address issues such as this, including appearances.

> - the chair of the nom-com is a current employee of the RIPE NCC.

This is RIPE community governance. I see no conflict with chairing the 
NomCom. The chair does not vote on candidate selection. I am completely 
free and independent in this role. In fact the RIPE NCC is the perfect 
employer for this because they have complete understanding that it takes 
significant time an energy to do this properly.

>
> This isn't a statement of lack of confidence in any of the people 
> concerned, either individually or collectively, but it looks troubling 
> from the point of view of governance practices.

Superficially this is certainly true. But once you look closely I do not 
consider it troubling at all.

>
> In the future, anyone should be able to look back at the nomination 
> process and with full hindsight, feel comfortable that it was sound.  
> I am not completely sure that we are in this position right now.

Yes we should feel comfortable that the process is executed soundly. The 
time for evaluation comes when the NomCom has submitted its final 
report. In the meantime let us follow the agreed procedure and by all 
means ensure that it is indeed followed.

Daniel

Hi,

Personal response as one of the NomCom members:

> - the current RIPE chair is now - with safeguards in place - the RIPE NCC managing director.

This is correct. Hans Petter resigned as RIPE chair, and the Working Group chairs collective asked him to be ad-interim chair until NomCom can select the new chair and vide-chair (for the purpose of continuity IIRC).

> - one of the candidates is the previous chair of the RIPE NCC executive board.
> - one of the candidates is a current employee of the RIPE NCC.

Correct. The NomCom takes all possible conflicts of interest into account for all candidates.

> - the chair of the nom-com is a current employee of the RIPE NCC.

Do note that the chair is a non-voting seat, so a properly neutral chair in the tradition of RIPE Working Groups. And as a member of NomCom I can say that Daniel has chaired the NomCom properly and neutrally.

So I understand your concerns about governance, but in terms of neutrality of NomCom everything is sound. The voting members of NomCom are randomly selected, the RIPE NCC Managing Director does not have any influence and the chair performs perfectly and neutrally (and is non-voting).

Nominating candidates from more diverse backgrounds is up to the community :)

Cheers,
Sander

On 13 May 2020, at 03:41, Sander Steffann <sander _at_ steffann _dot_ nl> wrote:

>> - the chair of the nom-com is a current employee of the RIPE NCC.
> 
> Do note that the chair is a non-voting seat, so a properly neutral chair in the tradition of RIPE Working Groups. And as a member of NomCom I can say that Daniel has chaired the NomCom properly and neutrally.
> 
> So I understand your concerns about governance, but in terms of neutrality of NomCom everything is sound. The voting members of NomCom are randomly selected, the RIPE NCC Managing Director does not have any influence and the chair performs perfectly and neutrally (and is non-voting).

I am also a current nomcom volunteer.

I take Daniel's and Sander's messages to be confirmation that the nomcom process is being followed accurately, and I agree with that assessment. I think that's an important thing for the community to know.

However, I think Nick's message highlights some deeper questions about whether the process is the right one for the community, and asks if there are governance concerns that people feel are not adequately addressed in the process we are following.

Following the process accurately is a separate question from whether the process is the right one.

The nomcom process that we are following is brief and leaves plenty of discretion in its implementation. The nomcom has not yet made a decision and in fact decided not to start substantive discussion about candidates until after RIPE 80. So while it's difficult to imagine that the process can be changed in all the aspects that Nick highlights without the benefit of time travel, never mind the associated question of whether it should, the outcome of the current process is still very much an open question.

In other words, there is still plenty of opportunity for people who have governance or any other concerns to make their voices heard and help the nomcom make the best choice for the community.

The nomcom is available this week on zoom and all the time by e-mail, details here: 

  https://ripe-nomcom.org/office-hours-during-ripe-80/
  nomcom _at_ ripe-nomcom _dot_ org

I know several if not all of the nomcom volunteers are also following this list.

If you care about this (or any other) aspect of the process, please speak up.

Nick, thank you for starting this conversation.


Joe

On 13 May 2020, at 13:42, Joe Abley <jabley _at_ hopcount _dot_ ca> wrote:
> 
> Following the process accurately is a separate question from whether the process is the right one.

Indeed. There was considerable discussion about that process while it was being developed. The final version seemed right - well nobody raised substantive concerns about it. We got community consensus for that too.

We should also bear in mind that this is the first time the process has been exercised. So there could be some rough edges that need to be tweaked or possible improvements. It could be changed in light of how it’s worked in practice. That might be something for the NomCom to consider once they have done the job of finding our next Dear Leader.

And anyway, I think Nick’s concern is not about the process - just that there’s a possibly unhealthy level of NCC involvement in the composition of the NomCom and the list of candidates. [That might be a perception thing since we’ve no reason to doubt the good faith of those NCC-linked individuals. Nick pretty much said that too.] There’s not much we can do about that level of involvement at this time because the appointment process train left the station some time ago.

> In other words, there is still plenty of opportunity for people who have governance or any other concerns to make their voices heard and help the nomcom make the best choice for the community.

Indeed. That is by far the most important thing.

Tell the Nomcom what you think about the candidates! More info will allow the Nomcom to make a much better decision that gets the widest support from the community.

Daniel Karrenberg wrote on 13/05/2020 08:01:
> The nomination process is soundly executed. As you are aware the RIPE 
> Community has spent years to devise this process. The result is the most 
> formal process in RIPE to date. It is therefore important that we follow 
> it.
Daniel,

The procedures are not unreasonable, per-se.  The individuals are fine 
too, for that matter - I have no doubts about both the good intentions 
and the good standing of all the individuals involved.

What makes me uncomfortable are the current and recent-past working 
relationships between the individuals involved - particularly that there 
are relationships of authority involved.

Nick

Hi,

On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 05:21:26PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> What makes me uncomfortable are the current and recent-past working 
> relationships between the individuals involved - particularly that there 
> are relationships of authority involved.

So what do you suggest to actually *do* now?

Gert Doering
        -- member of the NomCom
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                      Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14        Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                 HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444         USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

> On 13 May 2020, at 17:21, Nick Hilliard <nick _at_ foobar _dot_ org> wrote:
> 
> What makes me uncomfortable are the current and recent-past working relationships between the individuals involved - particularly that there are relationships of authority involved.

These seem unlikely to influence the Nomcom’s deliberations. Or if they did, those involved would do the right thing. As you said yourself Nick, you have no doubts about both the good intentions and the good standing of all the individuals involved. I’m struggling to understand why you’re uncomfortable.

Are there any relationships of authority here? AFAICT none of the candidates are (or were) the boss of anyone on the Nomcom. Or vice versa. Though that doesn’t mean there could be perceptions that those relationships exist.

On Wed, 13 May 2020, Gert Doering wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 05:21:26PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>> What makes me uncomfortable are the current and recent-past working
>> relationships between the individuals involved - particularly that there
>> are relationships of authority involved.
>
> So what do you suggest to actually *do* now?

Hi,

Will the NomCom still consider a 5th, 6th, 7th possibility, or that is 
completely out of the defined process...?

Regards,
Carlos


> Gert Doering
>        -- member of the NomCom
> -- 
> have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
>
> SpaceNet AG                      Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
> Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14        Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
> D-80807 Muenchen                 HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
> Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444         USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
>

Hi,

On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 05:50:00PM +0100, Carlos Friaças wrote:
> On Wed, 13 May 2020, Gert Doering wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 05:21:26PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> >> What makes me uncomfortable are the current and recent-past working
> >> relationships between the individuals involved - particularly that there
> >> are relationships of authority involved.
> >
> > So what do you suggest to actually *do* now?
> 
> Will the NomCom still consider a 5th, 6th, 7th possibility, or that is 
> completely out of the defined process...?

This would require a full restart of the process, I think


  https://blog.ripe-nomcom.org/time-line/

"Collecting Nominations

 The committee will collect nominations until March 29th 23:59 UTC. 
 Committee members will actively solicit nominations. The list of 
 nominees who confirm their commitment to serve will be published 
 and continuously updated."

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                      Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14        Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                 HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444         USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

my eye is on the quality of the candidates and their track record.  as
integrity is a principal quality, imiho that handles coi, authority,
financial, ...

randy

Thanks for making it clear Gert!

Cheers,
Carlos


On Wed, 13 May 2020, Gert Doering wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 05:50:00PM +0100, Carlos Friaças wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 May 2020, Gert Doering wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 05:21:26PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>>>> What makes me uncomfortable are the current and recent-past working
>>>> relationships between the individuals involved - particularly that there
>>>> are relationships of authority involved.
>>>
>>> So what do you suggest to actually *do* now?
>>
>> Will the NomCom still consider a 5th, 6th, 7th possibility, or that is
>> completely out of the defined process...?
>
> This would require a full restart of the process, I think
>
>
>  https://blog.ripe-nomcom.org/time-line/
>
> "Collecting Nominations
>
> The committee will collect nominations until March 29th 23:59 UTC.
> Committee members will actively solicit nominations. The list of
> nominees who confirm their commitment to serve will be published
> and continuously updated."
>
> Gert Doering
>        -- NetMaster
> -- 
> have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
>
> SpaceNet AG                      Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
> Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14        Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
> D-80807 Muenchen                 HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
> Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444         USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
>

Dear all,

> On 12 May 2020, at 22:46, Nick Hilliard <nick _at_ foobar _dot_ org> wrote:
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> Probably like many others, I haven't been following the RIPE Chair nomination process as closely as it has deserved over the last number of months.
> 
> At the moment, the lineup looks like this:
> 
> - the current RIPE chair is now - with safeguards in place - the RIPE NCC managing director.
> 
> - one of the candidates is the previous chair of the RIPE NCC executive board.
> 
> - one of the candidates is a current employee of the RIPE NCC.
> 
> - the chair of the nom-com is a current employee of the RIPE NCC.
> 
> This isn't a statement of lack of confidence in any of the people concerned, either individually or collectively, but it looks troubling from the point of view of governance practices.


Thanks for voicing this Nick. I think it’s an important point to raise and personally I share this concern. 

For as long as I have been part of this community, we always been extremely responsible and clear about the separation between the RIPE NCC and the RIPE community. RIPE NCC staff members do not participate in the policy development process, they don’t appoint community members to leadership positions (such as WG chairs) and they have also never served as WG chairs whilst still being employed by the RIPE NCC. I have always believed that this has been a very healthy practice, in line with the bottom-up, community-driven decision making in RIPE.

The blurring of these lines caught me by surprise and it is something I do not feel is sound and in line with good governance practices. 

(I am a little less concerned with the RIPE NCC hiring a senior member of the RIPE community as MD, as I see that as a rather distinct and separate process. But it does of course raise questions about how good we are at getting new blood into this community. But that is a different discussion that I will leave for some other time.) 

On a related note, I am also concerned about the very small number of candidates that has been put forward for the positions of chair and vice chair. And I do think we need to ask ourselves if the process has been robust enough if the long list of candidates is this short. 

And to be absolutely clear from my side as well, this is in no way a comment on any of the volunteers, staff members or candidates involved. 

I am grateful for the work that many of the people here have put in and I don’t doubt the good intentions of anyone involved. 


Thanks,

Nurani 


> In the future, anyone should be able to look back at the nomination process and with full hindsight, feel comfortable that it was sound.  I am not completely sure that we are in this position right now.
> 
> Nick
> 

I have served as a task force chair of the anti-spoofing-tf and proposed and shepherded major address policies, like ‚rn out fairly‘ while being employed by the RIPE NCC. 


---
Sent from a handheld device.

> On 13. May 2020, at 19:22, Nurani Nimpuno <nurani _at_ nimblebits _dot_ net> wrote:
> 
> RIPE NCC staff members do not participate in the policy development process, they don’t appoint community members to leadership positions (such as WG chairs) and they have also never served as WG chairs whilst still being employed by the RIPE NCC.

Daniel,

> ... anti-spoofing-tf ...

I believe you seriously misconstrued the difference between some random
task-force and the process of selection of a Chairman of an entity with an
approximately 35 million euro budget and 25,000'ish members.

I'm with Nick on this one, it "looks troubling". In fact, the optics of
this process "suck" and with great respect to Sander and Joe's comment
about the nomcom earlier in the email thread, I'm not sure the nomcom has
done a good job so far.

Just my thoughts.

Martin


On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 10:36 AM Daniel Karrenberg <dfk _at_ ripe _dot_ net> wrote:

> I have served as a task force chair of the anti-spoofing-tf and proposed
> and shepherded major address policies, like ‚rn out fairly‘ while being
> employed by the RIPE NCC.
>
>
> ---
> Sent from a handheld device.
>
> > On 13. May 2020, at 19:22, Nurani Nimpuno <nurani _at_ nimblebits _dot_ net> wrote:
> >
> > RIPE NCC staff members do not participate in the policy development
> process, they don’t appoint community members to leadership positions (such
> as WG chairs) and they have also never served as WG chairs whilst still
> being employed by the RIPE NCC.
>
>

> On 13 May 2020, at 18:22, Nurani Nimpuno <nurani _at_ nimblebits _dot_ net> wrote:
> 
> On a related note, I am also concerned about the very small number of candidates that has been put forward for the positions of chair and vice chair. And I do think we need to ask ourselves if the process has been robust enough if the long list of candidates is this short. 

While a short list of candidates is not ideal Nurani, the metric here should be quality, not quantity. Choosing from a small pool of excellent candidates surely has to be better than picking from a large pool filled with dross or make-weights. YMMV.

You’ve also got to consider the practicalities. The most desirable candidates need to have several key attributes. IMO these include their standing in the community, a deep understanding of RIPE’s values and processes, an inexhaustible ability to cat-herd, diplomacy, patience, leadership, fairness, integrity, time/energy to do the job, etc, etc. There simply aren’t that many people around who have enough of these qualities. I think that goes a long way to explaining why the NomCom ended up with so few candidates to consider.

Hi,

On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 10:43:26AM -0700, Martin J. Levy wrote:
> I believe you seriously misconstrued the difference between some random
> task-force and the process of selection of a Chairman of an entity with an
> approximately 35 million euro budget and 25,000'ish members.

Martin, we're selecting the *RIPE* Chair here, not the RIPE NCC director.

RIPE neither has a budget nor "25 000 members".

Gert Doering
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                      Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14        Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                 HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444         USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

On 13 May 2020, at 19:50, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:

> Further:  what Sander said.

Sorry, I misspoke. I meant ‘what Gert said’:

“So what do you suggest to actually *do* now?”

Daniel

On Wed, 13 May 2020, Jim Reid wrote:

(...)
>
> You?ve also got to consider the practicalities. The most desirable candidates need to have several key attributes. IMO these include their standing in the community, a deep understanding of RIPE?s values and processes, an inexhaustible ability to cat-herd, diplomacy, patience, leadership, fairness, integrity, time/energy to do the job, etc, etc. There simply aren?t that many people around who have enough of these qualities. I think that goes a long way to explaining why the NomCom ended up with so few candidates to consider.

Hi,

I honestly prefer to believe there were more, but the other ones that 
don't show up on the (short)list, declined to be on the list.

Regards,
Carlos

> On 13 May 2020, at 18:43, Martin J. Levy <mahtin _at_ mahtin _dot_ com> wrote:
> 
> I believe you seriously misconstrued the difference between some random task-force and the process of selection of a Chairman of an entity with an approximately 35 million euro budget and 25,000'ish members.

Marty, I believe you’ve seriously misconstrued the difference between the processes for selecting the RIPE NCC and RIPE Chairpeople. :-)

> I'm not sure the nomcom has done a good job so far.

IMO they’re doing the best job they can given the circumstances. For instance it’s not their fault the community didn’t nominate a more diverse set of candidates. Or some of those candidates are somehow “tainted” because of their perceived links to the NCC. Anyone who thought the process was defective or the pool of candidates wasn’t good enough has had plenty of opportunities to say so. That hasn't happened AFAICT. It’s probably too late in the day to raise objections now while that process is well under way.

That said, I suppose we could rip this up and start again. But there would have to be compelling reasons to take such drastic action. Let’s hear them.

Hi Nurani,

On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 07:22:39PM +0200, Nurani Nimpuno wrote:
> For as long as I have been part of this community, we always been
> extremely responsible and clear about the separation between the
> RIPE NCC and the RIPE community. RIPE NCC staff members do not
> participate in the policy development process,

Yes and no to that.  We have been tried to be explicit in making
that distinction clear (and constantly failed, people use "RIPE" and
"RIPE NCC" interchangeably, and nobody really seems to mind), but 
nothing in the PDP says "a NCC employee is not allowed to have an
opinion on policy and voice that".  The PDP is quite clear here.

I think more important than "is someone with an opinion about policy
a NCC employee or not" is "be very *transparent* in policy making" - so,
discussions on the public lists, in the (public and archived) meeting, 
and so on, following the agreed PDP, with an appeals process if people
suspect something shady.  And I think we do achieve that transparency.

Gert Doering
        -- nomcom member, and involved in policy making for a while
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                      Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14        Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                 HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444         USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

> That said, I suppose we could rip this up and start again. 

we may not need to.  i assume the candidates are reading this list and
are appalled by the level of some of this discussion as i and are
looking at the door.

randy

On Wed, 13 May 2020, Jim Reid wrote:

(...)
>
> That said, I suppose we could rip this up and start again. But there would have to be compelling reasons to take such drastic action. Let?s hear them.

Hi,

I see two downsides about restarting:

1) it doesn't follow the defined process

2) HPH would possibly become the interim-interim-Chair. :-)

Regards,
Carlos

Third possible downside (Thanks Randy!):

We can even end up with even a smaller set... if some of the four 
nominees say "thanks, but no thanks" now.

Carlos


On Wed, 13 May 2020, Randy Bush wrote:

>> That said, I suppose we could rip this up and start again.
>
> we may not need to.  i assume the candidates are reading this list and
> are appalled by the level of some of this discussion as i and are
> looking at the door.
>
> randy
>

what would rob say?

are folk who are 'commenting' here also talking with the nomcom, giving
their feedback about candidate qualifications and preferences?  you
should be.

randy

Jim,

Marty, I believe you’ve seriously misconstrued the difference between the
> processes for selecting the RIPE NCC and RIPE Chairpeople. :-)


(It's "Martin" and never "Marty").

I read the response from Gert and Daniel.  Please realize that in the big
scheme of things, I don't care about the difference between RIPE and RIPE
NCC … kinda like I don't care about the difference between PA and PI space.
Both of those differences are totally made-up constructs.

But I digress. You asked:

That said, I suppose we could rip this up and start again. But there would
> have to be compelling reasons to take such drastic action. Let’s hear them.


So let me quote you back to you ...

IMO they’re doing the best job they can given the circumstances.


As this is a 100% soft process (i.e. you're not rack-n-stacking equipment
in a datacenter), I think the "circumstances" are immaterial.

For instance it’s not their fault the community didn’t nominate a more
> diverse set of candidates.


Correct - not a diverse bunch. I believe nearly all nomcoms have the power
to say "sorry, we must reopen the process".

Or some of those candidates are somehow “tainted” because of their
> perceived links to the NCC.


Your words; but I agree (except I maybe would remove the word "perceived").

Anyone who thought the process was defective or the pool of candidates
> wasn’t good enough has had plenty of opportunities to say so.


I'll happily say it now ... it's a poor pool of candidates.

That hasn't happened AFAICT. It’s probably too late in the day to raise
> objections now while that process is well under way.


Is it? If so, why are we discussing this and why does this mailing list
exist?

I, for one, simply don't like how this looks. I believe any well-minded
noncom would also realize that and correct themselves and reset the process.

Martin


On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 11:10 AM Jim Reid <jim _at_ rfc1035 _dot_ com> wrote:

>
>
> > On 13 May 2020, at 18:43, Martin J. Levy <mahtin _at_ mahtin _dot_ com> wrote:
> >
> > I believe you seriously misconstrued the difference between some random
> task-force and the process of selection of a Chairman of an entity with an
> approximately 35 million euro budget and 25,000'ish members.
>
> Marty, I believe you’ve seriously misconstrued the difference between the
> processes for selecting the RIPE NCC and RIPE Chairpeople. :-)
>
> > I'm not sure the nomcom has done a good job so far.
>
> IMO they’re doing the best job they can given the circumstances. For
> instance it’s not their fault the community didn’t nominate a more diverse
> set of candidates. Or some of those candidates are somehow “tainted”
> because of their perceived links to the NCC. Anyone who thought the process
> was defective or the pool of candidates wasn’t good enough has had plenty
> of opportunities to say so. That hasn't happened AFAICT. It’s probably too
> late in the day to raise objections now while that process is well under
> way.
>
> That said, I suppose we could rip this up and start again. But there would
> have to be compelling reasons to take such drastic action. Let’s hear them.
>
>

Hi Randy, All,

I honestly didn't like the criteria (attendance of 3 out of the last 5 
meetings) to be eligible to be included in the draw of volunteers.

Candidate qualifications, probably all four in the (short)list are fully 
qualified for the role(s).

Preferences, of course, everyone has their own. :-)

Regards,
Carlos



On Wed, 13 May 2020, Randy Bush wrote:

> are folk who are 'commenting' here also talking with the nomcom, giving
> their feedback about candidate qualifications and preferences?  you
> should be.
>
> randy
>

> I honestly didn't like the criteria (attendance of 3 out of the last 5
> meetings) to be eligible to be included in the draw of volunteers.

that discussion was last year

randy

> On 13. May 2020, at 21:20, Randy Bush <randy _at_ psg _dot_ com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> 
>> I honestly didn't like the criteria (attendance of 3 out of the last 5
>> meetings) to be eligible to be included in the draw of volunteers.
> 
> that discussion was last year
> 
> randy

... and will be again next year when we evaluate based on the NomCom final report. 
But now is not the time. 

 Randy Bush writes:

 > are folk who are 'commenting' here also talking with the nomcom, giving
 > their feedback about candidate qualifications and preferences?  you
 > should be.

And I cannot help noticing that complaining about the process closed even before the noncom
came into to exist.

	jaap

On 13/05/2020 19:48, Martin J. Levy wrote:

> I'll happily say it now ... it's a poor pool of candidates.

I'm hoping you didn't mean that it's a pool of poor candidates

Nigel

When (re)reading my contributions last *night* please consider them to be made in public, but in an informal context such as the hallway or bar which we are sorely missing this meeting. 

I wish I was in Berlin with all of you. 

Daniel

---
Sent from a handheld device.

> On 13. May 2020, at 21:24, Daniel Karrenberg <dfk _at_ ripe _dot_ net> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 13. May 2020, at 21:20, Randy Bush <randy _at_ psg _dot_ com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> I honestly didn't like the criteria (attendance of 3 out of the last 5
>>> meetings) to be eligible to be included in the draw of volunteers.
>> 
>> that discussion was last year
>> 
>> randy
> 
> ... and will be again next year when we evaluate based on the NomCom final report.
> But now is not the time. 

On Thu, 14 May 2020, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:

>
> When (re)reading my contributions last *night* please consider them to 
> be made in public, but in an informal context such as the hallway or bar 
> which we are sorely missing this meeting.
>
> I wish I was in Berlin with all of you.

Hi,

I wasn't planning to go to Berlin anyway (great city, had a great time 
last time i was there!), but i also wished to see some of the faces in 
person again, and without a (virus prevention) facemask. :-)

Thanks.

Regards,
Carlos


> Daniel
>
> ---
> Sent from a handheld device.
>
>> On 13. May 2020, at 21:24, Daniel Karrenberg <dfk _at_ ripe _dot_ net> wrote:
>>
>> 
>>> On 13. May 2020, at 21:20, Randy Bush <randy _at_ psg _dot_ com> wrote:
>>>
>>> 
>>>>
>>>> I honestly didn't like the criteria (attendance of 3 out of the last 5
>>>> meetings) to be eligible to be included in the draw of volunteers.
>>>
>>> that discussion was last year
>>>
>>> randy
>>
>> ... and will be again next year when we evaluate based on the NomCom final report.
>> But now is not the time.
>

randy _at_ psg _dot_ com 2020-05-13 11:30 [-0700]:
> what would rob say?

+1 to that, Randy!

Democracy is an ideal that we strive towards. In a perfect world
everyone is equally engaged, everyone has equal ability to participate,
and equal interest and opportunity to carry their share of the
responsibilities. Unfortunately the world is not ideal.

The job of RIPE chair is one of being a facilitator. Not a lobbyist for
a certain contingent or opinion. The personal properties we should look
for are fairness, the ability to negotiate opinions, to create
compromise and to unite, not a strong voice for certain opinions.

I wish we had a perfect process. We don't. But to be honest, it's better
than many others. Transparency is a crucial point on my assessment scale.

I wish we hade a wide selection of excellent candidates. We don't. What
we have is a limited set of candidates, all of which, IMHO, are likely
to do a very good job if chosen. Responsibility of being RIPE chair is
something that only a limited set of peole can (for personal reasons)
and will want to carry.

I wish we had the same amount of engagement in _participating_ (as in
being an active member of a group or committee) in the process as we do
in criticising the output. We don't. I didn't quite see 200 ppl turn up
for a seat on the NomCom.

What we have is a limited set of, IMHO, balanced and reliable persons
who try to move forward with limited participation from the community
and with a limited set of, again IMHO, balanced and reliable candidates
- all according to a process that has been decided upon in democratic
ways. And they are very transparent about what's going on.

I cannot demand more than that, AT THE VERY LEAST not without putting my
name on the committee list of X, or without offering my name as a
candidate.

I will give my feedback to the Nomcom and support my favourite
candidate, and I will give the NomCom the cred the deserve.

YMMV.

				Cheers,
				  /Liman
-- 
#----------------------------------------------------------------------
# Lars-Johan Liman, M.Sc.               !  E-mail: liman _at_ netnod _dot_ se
# Senior Systems Specialist             !  Tel: +46 8 - 562 860 12
# Netnod Internet Exchange, Stockholm   !  http://www.netnod.se/
#----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Gert,

> On 13 May 2020, at 20:12, Gert Doering <gert _at_ space _dot_ net> wrote:
> 
> Hi Nurani,
> 
> On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 07:22:39PM +0200, Nurani Nimpuno wrote:
>> For as long as I have been part of this community, we always been
>> extremely responsible and clear about the separation between the
>> RIPE NCC and the RIPE community. RIPE NCC staff members do not
>> participate in the policy development process,
> 
> Yes and no to that.  We have been tried to be explicit in making
> that distinction clear (and constantly failed, people use "RIPE" and
> "RIPE NCC" interchangeably, and nobody really seems to mind),

Weeeell, people do get confused, yes. But both RIPE and in particular the RIPE NCC always try to be crystal clear about the distinction between the two. 

> but 
> nothing in the PDP says "a NCC employee is not allowed to have an
> opinion on policy and voice that".  The PDP is quite clear here.
> 
> I think more important than "is someone with an opinion about policy
> a NCC employee or not" is "be very *transparent* in policy making”

I disagree with that assessment. 

If you want to claim that the policy process is truly community driven and you want to avoid any accusations of it being controlled by those who allocate the IP resources, then this principle sits at the heart of our community values. 


> - so,
> discussions on the public lists, in the (public and archived) meeting, 
> and so on, following the agreed PDP, with an appeals process if people
> suspect something shady.  And I think we do achieve that transparency.

For the record, I do as well. Mostly. :)

Nurani 




> 
> Gert Doering
>        -- nomcom member, and involved in policy making for a while
> -- 
> have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
> 
> SpaceNet AG                      Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
> Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14        Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
> D-80807 Muenchen                 HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
> Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444         USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

On Thu, 14 May 2020, Lars-Johan Liman wrote:

(...)
>
> I wish we hade a wide selection of excellent candidates. We don't. What
> we have is a limited set of candidates, all of which, IMHO, are likely
> to do a very good job if chosen. Responsibility of being RIPE chair is
> something that only a limited set of peole can (for personal reasons)
> and will want to carry.

Exactly. Now it crossed my mind it would be good if someone had the idea 
of nominating you. But unfortunately we're beyond that point.


> I wish we had the same amount of engagement in _participating_ (as in
> being an active member of a group or committee) in the process as we do
> in criticising the output. We don't. I didn't quite see 200 ppl turn up
> for a seat on the NomCom.

There was the "criteria", which (at least) i failed to complain about in 
due time :-)


(...)
> I will give my feedback to the Nomcom and support my favourite
> candidate, and I will give the NomCom the cred the deserve.

I will do the same, and i must say i would have liked to see at least 
three of the NomCom members on the candidate list (which seems to be 
clearly incompatible...)


Regards,
Carlos

Hi Nurani,

On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 10:56:26AM +0200, Nurani Nimpuno wrote:
> > On 13 May 2020, at 20:12, Gert Doering <gert _at_ space _dot_ net> wrote:
> 
> > but 
> > nothing in the PDP says "a NCC employee is not allowed to have an
> > opinion on policy and voice that".  The PDP is quite clear here.
> > 
> > I think more important than "is someone with an opinion about policy
> > a NCC employee or not" is "be very *transparent* in policy making???
> 
> I disagree with that assessment. 
> 
> If you want to claim that the policy process is truly community
> driven and you want to avoid any accusations of it being controlled
> by those who allocate the IP resources, then this principle sits
> at the heart of our community values.

Participation by "the wider RIPE community" hasn't been as overwhelming
as one could hope for.  As a second-best pick, I go for "informed input
from people with experience in the field, made transparent to everyone
interested in what's happening".

So, yes, I think input from RIR staff can be very valuable to policy
building - the community is watching, and I fully trust the community
to call "STOP!" if something questionable is proposed.

If we do think, as RIPE community, that RIR employees should not be 
permitted to participate in policy making, we need to adjust the PDP 
to actually say so.

Gert Doering
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                      Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14        Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                 HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444         USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

> On 13 May 2020, at 23:39, Nigel Titley <nigel _at_ titley _dot_ com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 13/05/2020 19:48, Martin J. Levy wrote:
> 
>> I'll happily say it now ... it's a poor pool of candidates.
> 
> I'm hoping you didn't mean that it's a pool of poor candidates
> 

That would be making this personal which I don’t believe is anywhere close where Nick was expressing concerns and, dare I say, a notch below what we are used from a beacon like you.

And while I am here, I have to agree with Nick’s concerns. While almost each individual piece looks reasonable by itself, the aggregate has vast room for improvement. I am aware of people who just decided not to get involved upon seeing the landscape and that, for me, is a sign of trouble (feel free to shrug this aside by inserting standard response “I can’t make other people do things that are up to them”)

The process itself is sufficiently documented and was developed in public (*) but the combined result certainly has a created a component of uneasiness, which is what I feel and what I felt Nick was getting at.

Just my (outsider) 2 cents
Joao

(*) some time in the future one could debate the difference between a public process and an open one.

Nurani,

Just to get the premises right: you keep claiming that a Spanish wall 
between RIPE and the RIPE NCC is either codified in or processes or our 
practice. As Gert pointed out the former is not the case. I have pointed 
out anecdotal evidence that the latter is not a tradition either. So 
claiming that this ‘sits at the heart of our community values’ 
appears far fetched to me.

About whether such a Spanish wall is desirable our opinions obviously 
differ. And I recognise that you are not alone. So I suggest that you 
organise to get such a
Spanish wall codified in our processes and we will have that discussion.

You have said ‘And to be absolutely clear from my side as well, this 
is in no way a comment on any of the volunteers, staff members or 
candidates involved.’ Can I take this to mean that we can carry on 
with the running process? Or do I detect a desire to influence the 
running process? If the latter is true then the NomCom will  need 
concrete suggestions with significant support.

As far as the running process is concerned the NomCom has meticulously 
adhered to ripe-727/728. So far we have heard a lot of positive input 
about the nominees. The NomCom has already talked about conflicts of 
interest and dependencies in principle. We have not discussed particular 
nominees yet. I am sure that the NomCom will consider these aspects 
carefully once we discuss candidate selection; and that includes 
appearances too.

Daniel (speaking for himself and himself only)

> On 14 May 2020, at 11:59, Daniel Karrenberg <dfk _at_ ripe _dot_ net> wrote:
> 
> About whether such a Spanish wall 

You lost me, what is a Spanish wall? First I hear the term and google is not being helpful

Joao

It is more a Mexican / USA wall..  

There are plans to build it and maintain it.. but there are holes and ways around it .. and things slip through anyway ...  
Any nobody wants to pay for it... 

Just kidding __
Erik 

On 14/05/2020, 12:16, "ripe-chair-discuss on behalf of Joao Luis Silva Damas" <ripe-chair-discuss-bounces _at_ ripe _dot_ net on behalf of joao _at_ bondis _dot_ org> wrote:

    
    
    > On 14 May 2020, at 11:59, Daniel Karrenberg <dfk _at_ ripe _dot_ net> wrote:
    > 
    > About whether such a Spanish wall 
    
    You lost me, what is a Spanish wall? First I hear the term and google is not being helpful
    
    Joao
    

On 14 May 2020, at 12:16, Joao Luis Silva Damas wrote:
>
> You lost me, what is a Spanish wall? First I hear the term and google 
> is not being helpful

A Germanism that escaped. In English it is a ‘Chinese Wall’.

Daniel

> On 14 May 2020, at 11:16, Joao Luis Silva Damas <joao _at_ bondis _dot_ org> wrote:
> 
> You lost me, what is a Spanish wall? First I hear the term and google is not being helpful

I expect it’s the same thing as a Chinese wall:

Chinese wall noun (often in pl)
The strict demarcation barrier which must exist between eg the corporate finance and investment advisory departments of a bank, etc in order to ensure that privileged information available to one department is not available to the other and so prevent conflicts of interest from arising

Thank you, that was my intuition but better be sure (and learn something new along the way)

> On 14 May 2020, at 12:21, Daniel Karrenberg <dfk _at_ ripe _dot_ net> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 14 May 2020, at 12:16, Joao Luis Silva Damas wrote:
>> 
>> You lost me, what is a Spanish wall? First I hear the term and google is not being helpful
> 
> A Germanism that escaped. In English it is a ‘Chinese Wall’.
> 
> Daniel

cfriacas _at_ fccn _dot_ pt 2020-05-14 10:07 [+0100]:
> Exactly. Now it crossed my mind it would be good if someone had the
> idea of nominating you. But unfortunately we're beyond that point.

Thank you for your kind words and confidence.

				Cheers,
				  /Liman

Dear all,

On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 11:59:38AM +0200, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
> Just to get the premises right: you keep claiming that a Spanish wall
> between RIPE and the RIPE NCC is either codified in or processes or
> our practice. As Gert pointed out the former is not the case. I have
> pointed out anecdotal evidence that the latter is not a tradition
> either. So claiming that this ‘sits at the heart of our community
> values’ appears far fetched to me.

If the practise of this wall does not exist in tradition, why does it
appear to me most RIPE NCC employees are discouraged to speak out in
public? Corollary, I think the notion of a difference between RIPE and
RIPE NCC appears to exist from the very process this mailing list is
about (selection chair/vice chair positions for RIPE, which clearly is
different than selecting leadership positions in RIPE NCC).

None of what follows below appears optimal to me. I have confidence in
the individuals involved, but my confidence in the process's ability to
be executed and conclude successfully at present is faltering a bit. I
recognise a lot of people put a lot of work into this project, as such
what I share here may result in hurt. :-( At the end of the day this is
all about real humans and the real Internet, where we must protect each
other from the negative impact of conflict of interest.

Possible paths forward, hopefully pragmatic:

1/ Until we have more clarity/consensus on the intertwined RIPE & RIPE
NCC story, for me the current situation is drastically simplified if
staff members of the RIPE NCC do not appear on the list of eligible
nominees presented to the NOMCOM. However, if we follow through on that
we may end up with a slate of 3 people, to fill 2 positions, which as
Nurani pointed out might not be sufficient for robust process. :-(

2/ Another approach could be to (*before* completing this year's NOMCOM
process) ensure that whoever are selected & confirmed will be given an
opportunity to become salaried employees of the RIPE NCC organisation.
This would create a somewhat more level playing field for all nominees
(and of course whoever is confirmed will not be terminated after their
term is up, or what would the community expect to happen here?).

3/ Restart the process as many times is needed until a sufficiently
large pool of nominees exists so the confirming body has more assurances
proper deliberations resulted in the selection.

Even if one does not see potential for conflict of interest in the
current situation, I do see potential for significant trouble should
conflict of interest arise at any future point in time.

Let's please buy ourselves more time to refine this process. 

Kind regards,

Job

> On 14 May 2020, at 10:11, Gert Doering <gert _at_ space _dot_ net> wrote:
> 
> So, yes, I think input from RIR staff can be very valuable to policy
> building - the community is watching, and I fully trust the community
> to call "STOP!" if something questionable is proposed.
> 
> If we do think, as RIPE community, that RIR employees should not be
> permitted to participate in policy making, we need to adjust the PDP
> to actually say so.

I think they should be allowed to provide input to the PDP but not run or control it. Those are two different factors. We have in the past also (always?) made WG Chairs who become NCC employees step down. From memory I think that happened for both when James Aldridge and Maco Hogewoning joined the RIPE NCC.

Daniel raises the issue that there never was a encoded separation between the RIPE NCC and RIPE. I would have to go and check to what extent it was encoded, but for almost all WG Chairs meetings I have attended it has certainly been clear, and if we don’t believe this to be the case any more or even that it shouldn’t be - then I question why we need a RIPE chair at all? Surely this role then just become a function of the NCC? If we believe that there is no distinction between RIPE NCC and RIPE I would suggest we cut out a lot of red tape and run RIPE as part of the RIPE NCC existing structures.

If we DO believe there is separation between RIPE and the RIPE NCC then we need to ensure that is carried properly in the selection of the RIPE Chair. This is not a view on any of the candidates it is a view on what we see RIPE itself being. I would argue that we (well all least I) didn’t foresee this complexity arising when reviewing the RIPE chair selection process, and I now wish I had.

- kurtis -

> On 14 May 2020, at 09:53, Lars-Johan Liman <liman _at_ netnod _dot_ se> wrote:
> 
> I wish we hade a wide selection of excellent candidates. We don't. What
> we have is a limited set of candidates, all of which, IMHO, are likely
> to do a very good job if chosen. Responsibility of being RIPE chair is
> something that only a limited set of peole can (for personal reasons)
> and will want to carry.

Given that circumstances have changed. There is a chance of this being funded by the NCC, it might be a full time role - would we perhaps have had a wider set of candidates if that was part of the call for nominations (at least I can’t find that it was). There seems to be a number of changing parameters during the process - when that occurs I believe we should stop and think if we really need to press on or if we should let the variables settle and start when the full conditions are known. This is not a criticism of anyone - it is just an observation of where we are at the moment.

 - kurtis -

On 14 May 2020, at 15:41, Kurtis Lindqvist wrote:

>> On 14 May 2020, at 10:11, Gert Doering <gert _at_ space _dot_ net> wrote:
>>
>> So, yes, I think input from RIR staff can be very valuable to policy
>> building - the community is watching, and I fully trust the community
>> to call "STOP!" if something questionable is proposed.
>>
>> If we do think, as RIPE community, that RIR employees should not be
>> permitted to participate in policy making, we need to adjust the PDP
>> to actually say so.
>
> I think they should be allowed to provide input to the PDP but not run 
> or control it. Those are two different factors. We have in the past 
> also (always?) made WG Chairs who become NCC employees step down. From 
> memory I think that happened for both when James Aldridge and Maco 
> Hogewoning joined the RIPE NCC.
>
> Daniel raises the issue that there never was a encoded separation 
> between the RIPE NCC and RIPE. I would have to go and check to what 
> extent it was encoded, but for almost all WG Chairs meetings I have 
> attended it has certainly been clear, and if we don’t believe this 
> to be the case any more or even that it shouldn’t be - then I 
> question why we need a RIPE chair at all? Surely this role then just 
> become a function of the NCC? If we believe that there is no 
> distinction between RIPE NCC and RIPE I would suggest we cut out a lot 
> of red tape and run RIPE as part of the RIPE NCC existing structures.

Would it not be possible for Mirjam to resign from the RIPE NCC once she 
is selected just as well. Or is she tainted for life?

>
> If we DO believe there is separation between RIPE and the RIPE NCC 
> then we need to ensure that is carried properly in the selection of 
> the RIPE Chair. This is not a view on any of the candidates it is a 
> view on what we see RIPE itself being. I would argue that we (well all 
> least I) didn’t foresee this complexity arising when reviewing the 
> RIPE chair selection process, and I now wish I had.
>
> - kurtis -

>> You lost me, what is a Spanish wall? First I hear the term and
>> google is not being helpful
> A Germanism that escaped. In English it is a ¡Chinese Wall¢.

< i will have gotten a few nations incorrect >

i was once in an international academic meeting, and an american said
"that's greek to me."  there was a greek, and they said "no, that's
chinese to me."  the old professor from nanking said "no that's ..."
well you get it.  so of course we canvassed the whole group and found
two complete rings and some outliers.

randy

> Given that circumstances have changed. There is a chance of this being
> funded by the NCC, it might be a full time role - would we perhaps
> have had a wider set of candidates if that was part of the call for
> nominations

if the dog had not stopped to pee, he would have caught the rabbit.

i think we all wish the circumstances are what they were when we last
met.  unfortunately, no magic.

so we are where we are.  i suspect no one in the nomcom process of ill
intent or lack of integrity.  i believe the candidates are genuine and
hope we'll do our best to support the ones chosen.

randy

> On 14 May 2020, at 16:15, Randy Bush <randy _at_ psg _dot_ com> wrote:
> 
>> Given that circumstances have changed. There is a chance of this being
>> funded by the NCC, it might be a full time role - would we perhaps
>> have had a wider set of candidates if that was part of the call for
>> nominations
> 
> if the dog had not stopped to pee, he would have caught the rabbit.
> 
> i think we all wish the circumstances are what they were when we last
> met.  unfortunately, no magic.

A change in circumstances is for instance the fact that HPH is no longer a candidate.

What Kurtis is pointing to is actually a change to the job description, so definitely a change that might have affected potential and current candidates. 

Joao

On 14 May 2020, at 15:41, Kurtis Lindqvist wrote:

>  We have in the past also (always?) made WG Chairs who become NCC 
> employees step down. From memory I think that happened for both when 
> James Aldridge and Maco Hogewoning joined the RIPE NCC.

IIRC  Marco stared working at the NCC in Jan. 2011 and stepped down as a 
WG chair in Nov. 2014.

> On 14 May 2020, at 15:15, Randy Bush <randy _at_ psg _dot_ com> wrote:
> 
> so we are where we are.  i suspect no one in the nomcom process of ill
> intent or lack of integrity.  i believe the candidates are genuine and
> hope we'll do our best to support the ones chosen.

I fully agree.

Let’s run the current agreed (and long under way!!) process to its conclusion. There will be plenty of time afterwards to conduct a post mortem, take account of the after-the-fact issues that are being raised now, apply lessons learned, etc so that the process is better for the next time.

FWIW it will look awful if that process gets derailed now because of concerns that weren’t raised during the long community discussion as the appointment process was developed. Its sets a very ugly and dangerous precedent too.

> On 14 May 2020, at 14:52, Daniel Karrenberg <dfk _at_ ripe _dot_ net> wrote:
> 
> Would it not be possible for Mirjam to resign from the RIPE NCC once she is selected just as well. Or is she tainted for life?

First of all I think we should avoid the use of “tainted” and secondly I was trying to keep the arguments on a principe level and discussed the separation of RIPE and RIPE NCC, not any individual circumstances around candidates. The Nomcom has asked for feedback and I was trying to provide mine here as I have also done in private to the Nomcom.

To answer your question - I am assuming by it that we have made the assumption that we want to keep separation between RIPE NCC and RIPE. If so, obviously no-one is associated with an ex-employer for life. In governance, both public and private it is commonly assumed that for certain (at least senior) roles you will keep a distance in time between roles to ensure that real or perceived conflict of interest is avoided. How long this time should (or none) can be debated.

- kurtis -

> On 14 May 2020, at 15:15, Randy Bush <randy _at_ psg _dot_ com> wrote:
> 
>> Given that circumstances have changed. There is a chance of this being
>> funded by the NCC, it might be a full time role - would we perhaps
>> have had a wider set of candidates if that was part of the call for
>> nominations
> 
> if the dog had not stopped to pee, he would have caught the rabbit.
> 
> i think we all wish the circumstances are what they were when we last
> met.  unfortunately, no magic.
> 
> so we are where we are.  i suspect no one in the nomcom process of ill
> intent or lack of integrity.  i believe the candidates are genuine and
> hope we'll do our best to support the ones chosen.

I completely agree that the decision lies with the Nomcom and I have all respect for them. But they asked for feedback and then I would hope they would listen to it and make a decision based on the input. I am failing to understand what I sense is questioning of why we are providing input and even if we should provide input.

- kurtis -

> On 14 May 2020, at 15:43, Kurtis Lindqvist <kurtis _at_ kurtis.pp _dot_ se> wrote:
> 
> I am failing to understand what I sense is questioning of why we are providing input and even if we should provide input.

I should clarify - I am not saying you are questioning the input, but some of the discussion on the list certainly reads like it. Apologies if this could be read to mean otherwise.

- kurtis -

On 14 May 2020, at 16:45, Kurtis Lindqvist wrote:

>> On 14 May 2020, at 15:43, Kurtis Lindqvist <kurtis _at_ kurtis.pp _dot_ se> 
>> wrote:
>>
>> I am failing to understand what I sense is questioning of why we are 
>> providing input and even if we should provide input.
>
> I should clarify - I am not saying you are questioning the input, but 
> some of the discussion on the list certainly reads like it. Apologies 
> if this could be read to mean otherwise.
>
> - kurtis -

We are in hallway mode again.

> On 14 May 2020, at 15:43, Kurtis Lindqvist <kurtis _at_ kurtis.pp _dot_ se> wrote:
> 
> I am failing to understand what I sense is questioning of why we are providing input and even if we should provide input.

Kurtis, there seems to be a huge disconnect here.

Nobody’s "questioning of why we are providing input and even if we should provide input to the Nomcom". Well, not that I can see. AFAICT some people are raising questions about the process and/or perceived conflicts of interest in the NomCom. These are inappropriate at this time IMO because they should have been raised when the process was developed or when the composition of the NomCom was announced. They weren’t.

Those who have these concerns are welcome to give their input to the NomCom where I’m sure it will get the proper care and attention. Carrying on that discussion here is probably not going to help. 

So we have essentially two choices;

1) Let the current process run to a conclusion and trust all those involved to do the right thing wrt actual or perceived conflicts of interest. And just suck it up if the pool of candidates or NomCom composition is not as broad/diverse as some would like.

2) Blow up the current process and start from scratch. Which could well take beyond the heat death of the universe to resolve. And no doubt wipe out any goodwill from potential candidates and Nomcom members => an even worse outcome next time around.

What’s it to be?

Now OK, how the current process has worked out is not to everyone’s taste. But it’s good enough. [The perfect is the enemy of the good remember.] The process can of course be improved or amended in light of what we’ve found after it got used for the first time. That analysis and refinement should get done once the process has completed - unless of course it implodes beforehand.

>>> I am failing to understand what I sense is questioning of why we are 
>>> providing input and even if we should provide input.
>>
>> I should clarify - I am not saying you are questioning the input, but 
>> some of the discussion on the list certainly reads like it. Apologies 
>> if this could be read to mean otherwise.
>
> We are in hallway mode again.

i am deeply saddened at the tenor of our discussion on this list.  this
is not the european cooperative culture which keeps me coming back to
ripe after i have left the arin, apnic, ... communities.

usually, i would assume it is the medium; email sucks.  but we're all
old dogs at this, and should know how to use email.  and we're all old
enough to be beyond second guessing as a sport.

do we really feel the process is wrong and we were not heard when we
reached consensus on the process?  do we really question the integrity
of the nomcom?  do we really question the integrity of the nominees?

i, for one, do not question any of these.  sadly though, i am wondering
if the tenor and negativity on this list should cause me to rethink my
participation.

randy

Joao Luis Silva Damas wrote on 14/05/2020 15:22:
> What Kurtis is pointing to is actually a change to the job
> description, so definitely a change that might have affected
> potential and current candidates.

there were two things: a change to the job description and separately 
that it may be changing from an unpaid to a paid position.

Both these things would have had an impact on who might have been 
interested in applying because most people cannot afford to take a half- 
or full-time position like this on an nnon-paid basis.  If I read this 
correctly, both suggestions were made after the nominations pool was closed.

This is concerning because potential candidates were implicitly excluded 
from applying due to changes made after the opportunity for applying was 
closed off.

Nick

> On 14 May 2020, at 17:23, Nick Hilliard <nick _at_ foobar _dot_ org> wrote:
> 
> Joao Luis Silva Damas wrote on 14/05/2020 15:22:
>> What Kurtis is pointing to is actually a change to the job
>> description, so definitely a change that might have affected
>> potential and current candidates.
> 
> there were two things: a change to the job description and separately that it may be changing from an unpaid to a paid position.

And possibly also a change from a part-time position, to a full time position. 

These are all fundamental elements of the job:

- Job description
- Time commitment required
- Remuneration

> Both these things would have had an impact on who might have been interested in applying because most people cannot afford to take a half- or full-time position like this on an nnon-paid basis.  If I read this correctly, both suggestions were made after the nominations pool was closed.
> 
> This is concerning because potential candidates were implicitly excluded from applying due to changes made after the opportunity for applying was closed off.

I think that Kurtis’s suggestion:

>> I believe we should stop and think if we really need to press on or if we should let the variables settle and start when the full conditions are known. 

...is a rather sensible and constructive one. 

Nurani



> 
> Nick
> 

________________________________
From: ripe-chair-discuss <ripe-chair-discuss-bounces _at_ ripe _dot_ net> on behalf of Randy Bush <randy _at_ psg _dot_ com>
Sent: Thursday 14 May 2020 16:16
To: Daniel Karrenberg <dfk _at_ ripe _dot_ net>
Cc: ripe-chair-discuss _at_ ripe _dot_ net <ripe-chair-discuss _at_ ripe _dot_ net>
Subject: Re: [ripe-chair-discuss] Chair nomination process

CAUTION[External]: This email originated from outside of the organisation. Do not click on links or open the attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe.


>>>> I am failing to understand what I sense is questioning of why we are
>>>> providing input and even if we should provide input.
>>>
>>> I should clarify - I am not saying you are questioning the input, but
>>> some of the discussion on the list certainly reads like it. Apologies
>>> if this could be read to mean otherwise.
>>
>> We are in hallway mode again.
>
> i am deeply saddened at the tenor of our discussion on this list.  this
> is not the european cooperative culture which keeps me coming back to
> ripe after i have left the arin, apnic, ... communities.
>
> usually, i would assume it is the medium; email sucks.  but we're all
> old dogs at this, and should know how to use email.  and we're all old
> enough to be beyond second guessing as a sport.
>
> do we really feel the process is wrong and we were not heard when we
> reached consensus on the process?  do we really question the integrity
> of the nomcom?  do we really question the integrity of the nominees?
>
> i, for one, do not question any of these.  sadly though, i am wondering
> if the tenor and negativity on this list should cause me to rethink my
> participation.

Thank you for this, Randy.

I've been reading all of this since Nick's first email and I'm honestly very surprised by it all.

This has been one of the most community discussed and approved processes I've experienced in my time involved with RIPE and to have people suddenly, at this late stage say, "Well, I wasn't paying attention, but I have some concerns, which aren't about the people involved, but..."

Randy asks excellent questions. I think we have a process which worked its way through the Community incredibly publicly. We have a good pool of candidates. Sure, I'd love if it was bigger, but that requires people to volunteer, this doesn't happen magically.

I'm really confused what people are asking for here, and I would utterly reject the notion that we suddenly shout stop.

I continue to support the very collaborative work that I see the NomCom doing. I continue to support the process that we, as a Community, agreed to, and I look forward to work with whomever the NomCom chooses as our Chair and Vice-Chair.

We will have a review of this process and we will all be able to suggest improvements and figure out how to make everything better for next time, but right now, I'm more than happy with what's happening right now and will happen over the next 6 - 8 weeks.

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

Hallway mode:

We can always wish for an ideal process. The real question is: is it worth blowing up the current one? What happens if we do? What does it do to the *people*? The nominees? Our current chair? The NomCom volunteers? Any future volunteers? And last but not least yours truly who has worked his ... off to get that process agreed and is working likewise to see it thru?


Exhaustedly yours

Daniel

---
Sent from a handheld device.

> On 14. May 2020, at 17:23, Nick Hilliard <nick _at_ foobar _dot_ org> wrote:
> 
> Joao Luis Silva Damas wrote on 14/05/2020 15:22:
>> What Kurtis is pointing to is actually a change to the job
>> description, so definitely a change that might have affected
>> potential and current candidates.
> 
> there were two things: a change to the job description and separately that it may be changing from an unpaid to a paid position.
> 
> Both these things would have had an impact on who might have been interested in applying because most people cannot afford to take a half- or full-time position like this on an nnon-paid basis.  If I read this correctly, both suggestions were made after the nominations pool was closed.
> 
> This is concerning because potential candidates were implicitly excluded from applying due to changes made after the opportunity for applying was closed off.
> 
> Nick
> 
> 

On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 01:38:08PM +0100, Carlos Friaças wrote:
> On Thu, 14 May 2020, Job Snijders wrote:
> 
> (...)
> > Let's please buy ourselves more time to refine this process.
> 
> How?
> 
> Our current Chair (interim-Chair or interim-interim-Chair) is already in
> full capacity at the RIPE NCC.

You are probably right, this shouldn't linger for more than a few
months.

> Can we make him the interim-interim-interm-Chair?
> I start to see some similarities with a certain runout :-)

I think it would be much in the spirit of how HPH was selected &
confirmed (and compatible with the 'Pragmatism' section of RIPE-728) to
just trust HPH to indeed pick an RIPE interim-interim-interim-Chair for
now.

Plenty of people trusted HPH enough to transform his role to RIPE NCC
GM, so whoever HPH picks is fine with me.

A new process has been bootstrapped, many have invested a lot of time to
get here (thank you!), and its even said this is the most formal process
we have so far. Perhaps we consider it a false start and try again with
some tweaks?

I believe the current NOMCOM (voting+non-voting) was selected through a
fair process, those volunteers should be given the opportunity to make a
selection for the confirming bodies in the near future. That part
doesn't need to be repeated. 

I think it'll only take a few months to revise the process and design
appropriate resource assignment & checks and balances & get resources
assigned while the RIPE PDP works efficiently. Clearly many of us are
now engaged, and I assume committed to provide productive feedback.

The RIPE Chair has clearly documented duties, and the existence of this
selection process confirms the position is deemed necessary by many in
the community.

Kind regards,

Job

Many of us have been clearly engaged for over a year.

Many of us believe the process is robust and while it can doubtless be improved, because that is the nature of these things, it is not fatally flawed, or even close to it.

I still have yet to see any clear explanation of what is so wrong here and I don't think that the conversations (and that's all they are still) about remuneration or otherwise, would really have changed that much, candidate wise.

Brian
Who, to be very clear, is not on the NomCom, just in case anyone wasn't sure.

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

________________________________________
From: ripe-chair-discuss <ripe-chair-discuss-bounces _at_ ripe _dot_ net> on behalf of Job Snijders <job _at_ ntt _dot_ net>
Sent: Thursday 14 May 2020 19:52
To: ripe-chair-discuss _at_ ripe _dot_ net
Subject: Re: [ripe-chair-discuss] Chair nomination process

CAUTION[External]: This email originated from outside of the organisation. Do not click on links or open the attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe.


On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 01:38:08PM +0100, Carlos Friaças wrote:
> On Thu, 14 May 2020, Job Snijders wrote:
>
> (...)
> > Let's please buy ourselves more time to refine this process.
>
> How?
>
> Our current Chair (interim-Chair or interim-interim-Chair) is already in
> full capacity at the RIPE NCC.

You are probably right, this shouldn't linger for more than a few
months.

> Can we make him the interim-interim-interm-Chair?
> I start to see some similarities with a certain runout :-)

I think it would be much in the spirit of how HPH was selected &
confirmed (and compatible with the 'Pragmatism' section of RIPE-728) to
just trust HPH to indeed pick an RIPE interim-interim-interim-Chair for
now.

Plenty of people trusted HPH enough to transform his role to RIPE NCC
GM, so whoever HPH picks is fine with me.

A new process has been bootstrapped, many have invested a lot of time to
get here (thank you!), and its even said this is the most formal process
we have so far. Perhaps we consider it a false start and try again with
some tweaks?

I believe the current NOMCOM (voting+non-voting) was selected through a
fair process, those volunteers should be given the opportunity to make a
selection for the confirming bodies in the near future. That part
doesn't need to be repeated.

I think it'll only take a few months to revise the process and design
appropriate resource assignment & checks and balances & get resources
assigned while the RIPE PDP works efficiently. Clearly many of us are
now engaged, and I assume committed to provide productive feedback.

The RIPE Chair has clearly documented duties, and the existence of this
selection process confirms the position is deemed necessary by many in
the community.

Kind regards,

Job

> On 14 May 2020, at 19:52, Job Snijders <job _at_ ntt _dot_ net> wrote:
> 
> I think it would be much in the spirit of how HPH was selected &
> confirmed (and compatible with the 'Pragmatism' section of RIPE-728) to
> just trust HPH to indeed pick an RIPE interim-interim-interim-Chair for
> now.

In that case, why not have that as the appointment process all the time? ;-)

It would certainly put an end to this after-the-fact shed-painting about Nomcom composition, NCC “control”, how diverse or not the pool of candidates is, process minutae, etc, etc.

And having lit the blue touchpaper, I will run off to a safe distance to watch the ensuing fireworks. :-)

On 14/05/2020 20:57, Brian Nisbet wrote:> I still have yet to see any 
clear explanation of what is so wrong
> here and I don't think that the conversations (and that's all they
> are still) about remuneration or otherwise, would really have changed
> that much, candidate wise.

Indeed.

I would expect that such a conversation (and input) would happen also 
tomorrow during NomCom open office hours (from 11:00 to 18:00) via Zoom 
call, appointment through support _at_ ripe-nomcom _dot_ org.

Conversation slots are still available.

https://ripe-nomcom.org/office-hours-during-ripe-80/

Cheers, Jan

I hear various voices.

I hear people saying, sometimes gently, always I feel sincerely, that they are unhappy with where we find ourselves.

I hear people saying that a lot of work has gone into this process over a considerable period of time and that it should be allowed to play out.

I heard Randy and Liman mention Rob. I smiled at that, not least because the younger folk and the new-comers obviously cannot relate to that idea. In any case what did Rob do? He did not get involved in setting up a procedure. He did not initiate a selection process. He sort of picked a “random member of the audience” and said it was now their task. Maybe he was just being pragmatic in the circumstances.

So I hear different things. They are not always necessarily in contradiction.

I do not think we should ignore the people who have indicated they are unhappy. I think many people thought that, in this setting, good people following an agreed process would just work. And if it risked not working a degree pf pragmatism would come in.

I recognise the hard work that has gone in. Let me say, thank you. And it would indeed be nice if significant effort always ensured acceptable outcomes. But am i the only one who has had a project cancelled or had to stop a project? Whatever. Sunk costs, in whatever form, do not represent the best argument.

Of course the question has been rightly put: so what do we do? Pragmatically...

I think Hans-Petter should carry on as interim chair. I think he should be supported in this by Mirjam. That should be straightforward. He is her boss! This continues until we get ourselves sorted. I trust that that should not take much longer!

I think collectively though we need to get at least some some inkling to the answers to certain questions that cannot perhaps be fully answered publicly. Who else thought about putting their name forward? Who else was approached? Why did people in the end decide against?

To end on lighter note, I was asked by somebody, not on the noncom, if I was interested. I laughed! I am enjoying my freedom too much. But I also had in mind a number of other people - I had not made  a list - that I thought who would be very good.

Gordon

Hi,

On Fri, 15 May 2020, Gordon Lennox wrote:

> I hear various voices.
>
> I hear people saying, sometimes gently, always I feel sincerely, that they are unhappy with where we find ourselves.
>
> I hear people saying that a lot of work has gone into this process over a considerable period of time and that it should be allowed to play out.
>
> I heard Randy and Liman mention Rob. I smiled at that, not least because the younger folk and the new-comers obviously cannot relate to that idea. In any case what did Rob do? He did not get involved in setting up a procedure. He did not initiate a selection process. He sort of picked a ?random member of the audience? and said it was now their task. Maybe he was just being pragmatic in the circumstances.
>
> So I hear different things. They are not always necessarily in contradiction.
>
> I do not think we should ignore the people who have indicated they are unhappy. I think many people thought that, in this setting, good people following an agreed process would just work. And if it risked not working a degree pf pragmatism would come in.
>
> I recognise the hard work that has gone in. Let me say, thank you. And it would indeed be nice if significant effort always ensured acceptable outcomes. But am i the only one who has had a project cancelled or had to stop a project? Whatever. Sunk costs, in whatever form, do not represent the best argument.
>
> Of course the question has been rightly put: so what do we do? Pragmatically...
>
> I think Hans-Petter should carry on as interim chair. I think he should be supported in this by Mirjam. That should be straightforward. He is her boss! This continues until we get ourselves sorted. I trust that that should not take much longer!
>
> I think collectively though we need to get at least some some inkling to the answers to certain questions that cannot perhaps be fully answered publicly. Who else thought about putting their name forward? Who else was approached? Why did people in the end decide against?

I mostly agree with the above except about extending Hans-Petter burden in 
the current context.


(...)

> To end on lighter note, I was asked by somebody, not on the noncom, if I was interested.

You also did cross my mind. :-)


> I laughed! I am enjoying my freedom too much.

That's exactly why you might also be a got choice.
Your starting point is "freedom".



> But I also had in mind a number of other people - I had not made  a list 
> - that I thought who would be very good.

I tried to do that exercise, by looking at the list of RIPE80 attendees 
(which, obviously would also leave out some excellent people for the 
role). Note that i wrote "role", not "job".

I end up with about a dozen names.
Some of which are part of the current NomCom.

Let's hope for the best!

Regards,
Carlos


> Gordon
>
>

On 14 May 2020, at 20:52, Job Snijders wrote:

> … I think it'll only take a few months to revise the process and design
> appropriate resource assignment & checks and balances & get resources
> assigned while the RIPE PDP works efficiently. Clearly many of us are
> now engaged, and I assume committed to provide productive feedback. …

This is wishful thinking. Please look at the history.

Daniel

> On 14 May 2020, at 16:49, Daniel Karrenberg <dfk _at_ ripe _dot_ net> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 14 May 2020, at 16:45, Kurtis Lindqvist wrote:
> 
>>> On 14 May 2020, at 15:43, Kurtis Lindqvist <kurtis _at_ kurtis.pp _dot_ se> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I am failing to understand what I sense is questioning of why we are providing input and even if we should provide input.
>> 
>> I should clarify - I am not saying you are questioning the input, but some of the discussion on the list certainly reads like it. Apologies if this could be read to mean otherwise.
>> 
>> - kurtis -
> 
> We are in hallway mode again.


I’m rather exhausted at the end of an intensive week, trying to catch up on my day job and trying to recover from an intense RIPE meeting. (Which was excellent btw. I’m am hugely impressed with what you managed to pull off, the RIPE NCC. Well done to the whole team!) 

So I’m afraid I don’t have any more energy to pour into this discussion today. Mailing lists are such a bad medium and virtual meetings don’t provide room for those informal, bridging discussions, which (at least for me) help understanding the other party’ perspective. (Perhaps others are better at mailing list discussions, but I find them very difficult to engage in in a good way, especially whilst also doing my day job.) 

But before I leave this discussion before the weekend, I just want to say that I am acutely aware of how uncomfortable this discussion probably is to the four nominees. I sincerely hope that concerns voiced about a process, is not interpreted as veiled criticism of the candidates produced by that process. 

So, I think it’s worth repeating from my side, that my concerns are in no way with the competence of the four nominees involved. IMO, the candidates are all competent people of good standing in this community, for whom I have nothing but respect for. 

I know a few people have asked “ok so now what?”. There have been a few suggestions, but we are clearly not in agreement there yet. And I also think it is valuable to conclude the discussion about the problem statement, before moving into solution space. But that is my view. I know others want to move quicker. 

I am also highly conscious of the fact that there is such a small amount of people active in many of our discussions. Sure, you can always say that others can speak up if they want to. But if I take up that spot in the queue to the microphone, other people won’t stand up and share their view. 

So I take this opportunity to step back and I encourage others in this community to voice their opinon. 

TGIF,
Nurani

> On 15 May 2020, at 09:32, Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13 _at_ gmail _dot_ com> wrote:
> 
> I do not think we should ignore the people who have indicated they are unhappy. 

They have not been ignored Gordon. They’ve been listened to.

They’ve been asked to make suggestions on what would make them less unhappy. So far, there’s been silence AFAICT.

It’s very disappointing and frustrating to raise these meta-issues -- after saying *nothing* when the process was developed and agreed or when the Nomcom was formed!!! -- and then fail to make any constructive proposals on how to deal with their complaints. That makes it very hard to decide what to do next.

> I recognise the hard work that has gone in. Let me say, thank you. And it would indeed be nice if significant effort always ensured acceptable outcomes. But am i the only one who has had a project cancelled or had to stop a project? Whatever. Sunk costs, in whatever form, do not represent the best argument.
> 
> Of course the question has been rightly put: so what do we do? Pragmatically...

I already explained there are two choices. Stick with the agreed process that’s already in progress or blow it up and start again. Only one of these is sensible or pragmatic.

The only option IMO is to stick with the process that’s under way. Some may be uneasy about that. Well, that’s just too bad. We can’t always get what we want. Suck it up.

Those who are complaining now had plenty of opportunities to raise their concerns long before the appointment process started. They didn’t do that. They didn’t complain when the Nomcom membership was announced either. In my view it’s grossly unreasonable to try to overturn the community’s consensus decision and and agreed process in this way.

Those who are unhappy can make their concerns known to the Nomcom. I suggest they do that. I think they also need to re-read RIPE728. If they are unhappy with how the Nomcom is functioning, RIPE728 has a mechanism for dispute resolution. They are welcome to use it.

> I think Hans-Petter should carry on as interim chair. I think he should be supported in this by Mirjam.

That's beyond crazy Gordon. Sorry.

Hans Petter *can’t* carry on for much longer as interim RIPE Chairman. Aside from the actual or imagined conflict of interest concerns, he will be more than fully occupied with the responsibiities of his new job running the NCC. It’s also very unwise to put Mirjam on the spot like this while she’s a candidate. The optics on that are very wrong in too many ways.

I fear that if we extend the interim Chairman position, this will never end. Just look at how long it took to develop the current process and get consensus for that. It’ll take at least a year to come up with a new one or make changes to the existing one. And then consider the strong likelihood of getting poorer community participation for procedure v2 because v1 got killed. Why bother volunteering after you saw what happened to the previous attempt?

Leaving Hans Petter dangling in this way is unfair. And it takes the pressure off the community to find a solution since there’s no firm deadline. ie If we go round in circles for a year and get nowhere, it's no big deal - just give Hans Petter another extension and kick the can further down the road. Repeat ad nauseam.

Please note too that this thread was sparked by a concern that too many of the people involved in the selection process -- either as candidates or as members of the Nomcom -- were/are too close to the NCC. How could extending the term of the interim RIPE chairman and adding another RIPE NCC employee as vice chairman make *any* positive or pragmatic impact on this situation?

Hello all,

Like several others, I am uneasy with how this is proceeding. I also find it unpleasant to categorise people who bring their concerns to this list as “complaining”, I see it as providing feedback.

I’m aware the relevant policies have reached consensus quite some time ago, and to the best of my knowledge, they are being followed to the letter. However, I think it is too simple to say that just because this is how it was written, that is undoubtedly always the right path forward and beyond criticism.

A number of things have happened since the adoption of the policy, which some or many of us may not have anticipated:
- The at the time RIPE chair becoming the MD of the RIPE NCC and currently being interim chair
- A current RIPE NCC staff member being a nominee
- The possibility of the RIPE chair being a paid position

This situation not being anticipated, at least not by me, may have contributed to why the concerns were not raised while the process was developed. It does not inherently make the concerns invalid.

None of these things are wrong, and individually it may have mattered less, but it creates the situation where:
- Potential nominees were not accurately informed about the impact of being RIPE chair
- Two of the people involved in the NomCom, although non-voting, being RIPE NCC employees, while being included in a decision process over another RIPE NCC employee, who may become RIPE chair

Now, none of this is a violation of process, everyone involved in the NomCom and the nominees have acted correctly, and I’m sure they are able to separate their hats. The process has been followed precisely, nobody has acted improperly, but still I think the optics of it are just bad.

Personally, I think the worst part is the inconsistency in whether or not the RIPE chair is a paid position, because it may have excluded potential nominees, and it’s not like we have that many anyways. However, the process does not technically forbid this situation, so also here, what is happening is technically correct, but it looks pretty bad.

That said, how do we move forward? Extending the current situation by months at least is not a good option, because the interim RIPE chair and the RIPE NCC MD being the same person also looks bad - and seems like too much work for one person. Having Hans Petter as RIPE chair with support from Mirjam is even worse optics, in my opinion. Simply appointing another interim chair has all the downsides that this process was aiming to improve upon.

So, even with valid concerns about the optics of proceeding as originally planned, I think our only choice is to move forward with what we have. I don’t like this choice, but all other options are just as bad or worse, both in terms of process and optics.

(The suggestion of using the dispute resolution process is a bit odd to me, because what has happened so far is technically in line with what was written - the NomCom has not violated any policy.)

Sasha

Hi all,

Sasha more than adequately explained why it's reasonable that people might have paid attention to the development of this process, been sufficiently satisfied with the result not to comment on it, but now feel compelled to speak up. Things have changed since the process was developed, it's reasonable that opinions on it have too.

There's something else at play here too though. Nick captured it in the message at the top of this thread "it looks troubling from the point of view of governance practices". 

It feels like the deeper issue here is not so much about the chair selection process as it is the grey area of where the separation between RIPE Community and RIPE NCC lies. Given that the latter was created in part to service the former it's easy (for me at least) to think of that as a client / vendor relationship and expect that the behaviour we'd see elsewhere between public organizations in that sort of relationship would automatically apply.

It's understandable that pinning that down wasn't covered in the development of this process, but it's not unreasonable that for some the execution of this process has drawn inconvenient attention to it. We're trying to execute what is described as RIPEs most formal ever process on the shaky foundation of a doggedly informal relationship between RIPE and RIPE NCC. It's an oft repeated mantra that RIPE doesn't _do_ formal, I think that the current situation might have been avoided, or at least the ensuing discussion better guided by a formal description of this relationship.

As to the matter at hand.. I'm wary of proceeding with the current process as at this point it seems that the nomcom may feel pressure to preclude a candidate, or that if successful that candidate may be seen as illegitimate by a portion of the community. Nobody wants to drag this process out, but I don't think it's fair to the nomcom and the candidates to press on regardless of the uncertainty in the air.

I don't have strong opinions on how far the dial should turn in either direction in regard to the intermingling of RIPE and RIPE NCC, I think I'm pretty happy with the status quo. I do think however that having that status quo formally described would be helpful here.

dave

Hi,

Gert Doering wrote on Thu May 14 11:11:40 CEST 2020:
> So, yes, I think input from RIR staff can be very valuable to policy
> building - the community is watching, and I fully trust the community
> to call "STOP!" if something questionable is proposed.

May I?

STOP

I have spent a while reading the archives and just become more familiar with ripe-727/8.  I feel that I should have become more active before now.

The independence of "RIPE" and the RIPE NCC is written into our DNA and I support Nurani's statement that this independence "sits at the heart of our community values".  

"RIPE", the community, created the RIPE NCC as our secretariat, as forever described in ripe-19, which I copy from for the list's convenience:

"
   o RIPE defines the tasks and functions of the NCC

   o the NCC reports to RIPE
"
   ... ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-019.txt

-727/8 should be read in the context of -19, and whilst the NCC Executive Board appoints the chair of the RIPE Nominating Committee, the spirit of -19 should influence the NCCEB's selection of a Nomcom chair. This person should come from the community and certainly NOT the NCC secretariat, and plainly for reasons of good governance.  Especially when the authors of ripe-728 include a Nominee and a chair of the RIPE Nominating Committee.

This is not a complaint about any specific person, the contributions of the NCC people involved as nominees or in the Nomcom have been significant to the internet over the years.

I don't think that the concerns that Nick has raised in his email to this list of the evening of the 12th have even slightly been addressed:

Nick Hillard wrote on Tue May 12 22:46:42 CEST 2020:
> This isn't a statement of lack of confidence in any of the people 
> concerned, either individually or collectively, but it looks troubling 
> from the point of view of governance practices.
> In the future, anyone should be able to look back at the nomination 
> process and with full hindsight, feel comfortable that it was sound.  I 
> am not completely sure that we are in this position right now.

Yes.  These are good people!  This governance practice is broken.  The nomination process is not sound.  So let's help the next chair now by ensuring the independence of the RIPE Nominating Committee from the NCC.

Andy

Hi,

On Mon, 18 May 2020, Andy Davidson wrote:

> Hi,
>
(...)
>
> the spirit of -19 should influence the NCCEB's selection of a Nomcom 
> chair. This person should come from the community and certainly NOT the 
> NCC secretariat, and plainly for reasons of good governance.

The chair is not a voting member...



Would this be fixed if the current NomCom chair decides to step down and 
(this is just an example) be replaced by the previous NomCom chair (which 
is not a NCC employee)?



> Especially when the authors of ripe-728 include a Nominee and a chair of 
> the RIPE Nominating Committee.

We really can't reatroactively erase people who contributed to a 
document...

ps: i have no clue about what be best at this point.

Cheers,
Carlos

Dave Knight wrote on 15/05/2020 17:39:
> It feels like the deeper issue here is not so much about the chair
> selection process as it is the grey area of where the separation
> between RIPE Community and RIPE NCC lies.

Dave,

there are a number of different issues here, interrelated.  The more 
important issue is the working relationship between the RIPE NCC MD, the 
Nomcom Chair and one of the candidates.  Generally-accepted principles 
of good governance suggest that it is best to avoid making 
governance-related decisions where governance neutrality is a critical 
requirement, but where there are relationships of authority involved.  I 
believe we have now found ourselves in this situation.

Some people have questioned whether any of this reflects on the NomCom 
process, but it's not unusual for processes to be affected by external 
events.  In this situation, the process didn't anticipate that the RIPE 
Chair would become RIPE NCC MD.  Now, there isn't a de facto problem 
with a RIPE Chair becoming RIPE NCC MD, at least where protections have 
been put in place (and in this case they were), but it has an impact on 
the NomCom process and we can't ignore this.

The other thing you bring up is the relationship between the RIPE 
Community and the RIPE NCC.  There's a much broader underlying issue of 
how this relationship has worked and ought to work, but either the RIPE 
NCC and/or its staff should have direct input in RIPE Community policy 
and affairs, or they shouldn't, or something in-between.

If they should, then there is no compelling need for the NomCom to 
outline all the steps that it's taken to show its independence from the 
RIPE NCC.  For that matter, why are RIPE NCC staff members encouraged 
not to contribute to RIPE policy discussions?

And if they shouldn't have direct input into RIPE Community stuff, then 
how would this be compatible with the NomCom / RIPE NCC relationship 
situation as it stands?

Th NCC/Community relationship is something complex, and sits somewhere 
in between these two poles, and each side has always resisted defining 
it too carefully.  That said, we may be running into a case here which 
demonstrates weakness in this approach.  I don't believe, incidentally, 
that re- or over-defining this relationship will fix the problem at hand 
(or any other problems for that matter), but that doesn't mean we 
shouldn't acknowledge the complexity of the relationship.

The root issue here seems more to be a problem of circumstance and not 
of people.  I'm directly concerned that if it continues, whatever 
outcome happens will be open to questions about governance and that 
result would be detrimental to all.  I think Andy is right to ask for 
the process to stop so that we can take stock of what's going on and 
make changes if necessary.

Nick