[address-policy-wg] WG chair re-selection procedure

On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 11:07 AM, Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote:

> Well, the assumption is that we're not going to have an in-rush of
> volunteers, so in many cases it will be "one of the existing chairs
> is asking for re-affirmation and the WG is happy" or "one of the
> existing chairs is stepping down, and the WG is fine with the single
> volunteer for replacement".
>
> We do not want to spend large amounts of precious WG time on voting
> with paper ballots, counting, etc. - which could easily take half an
> hour or more.
>

This is entirely reasonable.


>
> So, we go for "the participants agree on a candidate, in whatever form
> this will be expressed (humming, show of hands, withdrawal of the other
> candidates, ...)", and if that turns out to be non-working, we'll have
> to come up with a formal tie breaking mechanism by the next meeting.
>
> (This actually was one of the reasons why the WG chair collective could
> not agree on a common policy.  Half of us wanted something lightweight
> and not time consuming, while the other half wanted "something more
> formal").


It's a bit puzzling, though, that there couldn't be a multi-tiered process,
e.g.:

1. If there is only one candidate, and no controversy, take the model
you're proposing.

2. If there are two candidates, hold an election with ballots and whatnot.

3. If there are three or more candidates, go Condorcet all the way, baby!

-- 
Jan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20140916/452f30cf/attachment.html>