[dns-wg] yet another heave on the WG Chair selection procedure

I strongly support the proposal that a WG Chair serves a term of N years
and also cannot serve more than 2 consecutive terms, I also agree with
Nick that adding something into the language to make it clear that a
previous chair can be re-elected following a set period would be a good
move.

Brett Carr

Nominet.


On 05/01/2015 17:33, "Jim Reid" <jim at rfc1035.com> wrote:

>Happy new year everyone.
>
>The list has been silent about the draft selection procedure. This means
>it's not possible to decide if there's a consensus or not so we can
>declare victory and move on. Sigh. Could I ask you all to review the
>proposal and comment on the list?
>
>One sticking point appears to be the "A co-chair cannot serve more than 2
>consecutive terms." provision in [2]. Someone commented at the mike at
>RIPE69 that this was a good thing. One of your co-chairs says the
>opposite. Everyone else has not commented one way or the other. Result:
>stalemate.
>
>WGs are supposed to have adopted a selection process by now and have it
>up and running in good time for RIPE70. Our WG is lagging behind the
>others. So, could we please have some comments on the proposed procedure
>and try to get the WG to converge on a consensus? Thanks.
>
>It would be appreciated if people gave clear statements of support or
>objection. In the latter case, please explain why and suggest alternate
>text. Simply saying "I disagree" will not be constructive. Though it
>would of course help with the consensus determination.
>
>Here's the suggested process again:
>
>#
>#       $Id: appointment,v 1.6 2014/10/06 11:46:56 jim Exp $
>#
>[1] The DNS WG will have N co-chairs. N will normally be 2 or 3, as
>determined by the WG.
>
>[2] 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.
>
>[3] 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.
>
>[4] 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.
>
>[5] The WG may decide by consensus to remove a WG co-chair at any time.
>
>[6] Consensus will be determined on the DNS WG mailing list. The consensus
>judgement will be made by the serving WG co-chair(s) and will exclude the
>co-chair who is the subject of that consensus judgement.
>
>[7] Any appeal over a consensus decision will be heard by the RIPE Chair
>(or their deputy) whose decision shall be final.