[address-policy-wg] Working group chair selection process

On 19 March 2015 at 22:49, Sander Steffann <sander at steffann.nl> wrote:
> Hi Working Group,
>
> We finally have a final draft for the working group chair selection process. Sorry for taking so long. Here is the text we propose to use:
>

Some "thoughts"...


>
> Once a year one of the chairs will step down, allowing new candidates the opportunity to become chair. The chairs take turns stepping down, and this is announced to the working group mailing list at least one month before the start of a RIPE meeting.

Wording should probably be "longest serving chair steps down" rather
than "taking turns"

What happens the year after two chairs are elected?

> The working group will select new chair(s) at the RIPE Address Policy Working Group session. Those present at the session, either in person or remotely, will determine by consensus among themselves who takes the available position(s). The remaining chair will determine whether consensus has been reached. If the working group finds itself without a chair the RIPE chair will determine consensus.
>

For the avoidance of accusations of bias it might be better to appoint
a member of the arbitration panel to fulfil this role in all cases?

> If no consensus can be reached then a secret ballot to elect the new chair(s) will be held at the working group session. Everyone physically present at the session can participate in the secret ballot. Votes will be counted by RIPE NCC Staff, and the result will be determined using proportional representation through the single transferable vote, otherwise known as PR-STV. The winner(s) of the secret ballot will become the new chair(s).

It's good practise to include the counting method used (just to stop
any arguments)

> # Running for chairperson
>
> Anybody is allowed to volunteer for a vacant chair position, including former chairs.
>
> Those who volunteer to chair the RIPE Address Policy Working Group should be aware of the responsibilities and work this involves. A description of the responsibilities of a RIPE working group chair can be found in "Working Group Chair Job Description and Procedures" (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-542).

How does one step forward as a potential chair? Doesn't there need to
be a hint of the process?

> # Removing a chairperson
>
> When a significant number of participants in the working group are unsatisfied with a particular chair, and this cannot be resolved by discussion within the working group, they can call for a vote of no confidence. The vote must be requested on the mailing list at least one week before a RIPE meeting. The vote will be resolved using a secret ballot, which will be held at the working group session. Everyone physically present at the meeting can participate. The votes will be counted by RIPE NCC Staff and the result is determined by simple majority. If the vote is passed the chair who is the subject of the vote will step down immediately.

This should then clarify what happens next. See previous comment about
the "nomination" process

Whats the process where both chairs are objected too?

Shouldn't the first selection be for both chair positions to cement
their "validity" as chairs


/me wanders off into a corner

J
-- 

James Blessing
07989 039 476