[Accountability-tf] RIPE Accountability Task Force Call Today, 2-3pm

All, 

Having been directly involved with the db-wg chair selection process (as one of the new co-chairs). All three chair terms expired annually in this recent rotation, two of the chairs expressed that they did not wish to continue as a chair. The resulting process did end in random selection from a hat. This process excluded the one chair who had served many terms. This led to no continuity across the chairs. Peter, I appreciate the vote of confidence that the sky hasn’t fallen yet in db-wg.  :-)  The point that the incumbent was out providing no continuity is a valid one. This process should be evaluated for the future.

Another topic that I have found challenging is the idea of consensus. Something the database working group has struggled with are proposals that only a few people comment about. Establishing consensus with few participants is a challenge. This results in no progress moving forward. If several people agree on something with no objections, should that be consensus. I agree that consistency might be useful. 

William 

On 2/6/17, 9:55 AM, "accountability-tf on behalf of Peter Koch" <accountability-tf-bounces at ripe.net on behalf of pk at DENIC.DE> wrote:

    On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 03:39:47PM +0100, Hans Petter Holen wrote:
    
    > and does it make sense to have different chair election procedures for each
    > wg?
    
    Now that the chairs' collective has a less operational role in the PDP ...
    
    > The selection process in itself had some surprising elements:
    > - all chairs up for selection at the same time
    > - unless a candidate stepped down it ended up with a draw from a hat.
    
    adding to this, partly contradicting my earlier sentiment:
    the draw ended with the only running incumbent being 'out'.
    Sky hasn't fallen yet, though, IMHO.
    
    -Peter