[dns-wg] proposal for appointment/removal of WG co-chairs
Jim Reid jim at rfc1035.com
Wed Oct 8 13:18:22 CEST 2014
On 8 Oct 2014, at 11:05, João Damas <joao at bondis.org> wrote: > I like simplicity that works so, in general, the proposal looks good to me. Thanks Joao. >>  The DNS WG will have N co-chairs. N will normally be 2 or 3, as >> determined by the WG. > > Can we at least pick a default value, e.g. 3 as it is now, since it seems to work. I think it's best to leave this open for now Joao: flexibility and all that. The WG is probably only going to have one slot at RIPE69 and if that continues for future meetings, 2 co-chairs may well be enough. OTOH if the WG gets flooded with work and/or agenda items, an extra meeting slot and co-chair would be needed. A decision on the number of co-chairs should be separated from the appointment procedure. ie the thing here is co-chairs serve a term of N years where N is whatever the number of co-chairs the WG decides is appropriate. >>  A co-chair will serve a term of N years, where N is the number >> of co-chairs. Terms will be staggered so that one term expires every >> year. A co-chair cannot serve more than 2 consecutive terms. >> >>  The WG will be given adequate notice that a co-chair's term is >> ending and to invite applications for that position. Anyone can >> volunteer for appointment. >> >>  At the end of a co-chair's term, the WG will decide by consensus >> who is appointed to the available co-chair position. In the event of a >> tie, the consensus tied candidates will draw lots. > > Please define tie in the context of a consensus process. Sounds like one of these simple-to-say/hard-to-do-right things. When two or more candidates have roughly equal levels of support which means there's no clear consensus on who should be appointed. I hope we can just apply common sense here instead of devising a procedure which requires wordsmithing and amateur lawyering over lots of definitions. > What would be wrong with a simple vote? sounds simpler. There be dragons! It opens up too many awkward problems IMO. Like deciding who gets to vote, how that gets done anonymously (presumably), what the eligibility criteria are, how the vote gets audited/counted, etc, etc. Voting by mailing list or on-line gives me the heebie-jeebies. I'm unsure how feasible it would be to use the NCC's on-line voting stuff (say) to appoint a WG Chair. Or if that's even appropriate. [Maybe one of the other WGs will try that and see how it works out.] Voting in person at a RIPE meeting would disenfranchise those who are unable to attend. So although voting might sound simpler, IMO it opens up lots of rat-holes and adds unwelcome complexity that shouldn't be needed. YMMV. I think it's best to start with something simple and lightweight. The procedure can always be changed later if/when experience shows that voting or whatever turns out to be a better way of deciding things. It seems reasonable to me that if the WG arrives at a consensus behind two candidates for one position, we might as well toss a coin to pick one of them. Why bother with anything more complicated than that? Aside from these operational and practical concerns, there's an important meta-issue. RIPE does not vote. It is not the ITU. RIPE decides important things by consensus (or should do). It will be a very sad day if RIPE sleepwalks away from consensus-driven decision making and introduces voting for (nearly) everything. Yes, I know we vote at RIPE meetings for the ASO and PC. But these things have no impact on RIPE's governance and policy-making. > In closing, would the current co-chairs stay in place, initiate a rotation right away, or all clear the deck (ala IPv6 wg)? That's for the WG to decide. My own view is there should not be a mass clear-out -- continuity and all that -- and the current co-chairs would be subject to whatever process the WG decides, one per year. So one of Jaap, Peter and myself would go through the process in 2015, another in 2016 and the final stuckee in 2017. That might well allow fresh faces to be gradually introduced: no bad thing. However if the WG feels a palace coup is required, that'll be fine by me.
[ dns-wg Archives ]