[iot-wg] another heave on the co-chair selection procedure

Hi Jim,

Thanks for the proposal. I completely support the process.

I think we should finish the milestone (of selecting the co-chair)  for 
the next RIPE meeting.

Sandoche.


On 09/10/2018 16:27, Jim Reid wrote:
> Colleagues, the selection process needs another nudge. Although there have been a few expressions of support and no objections, I’m reluctant to declare consensus because only a handful of people have spoken. I’d *really* like to declare victory so we can get on with the job of finding a co-chair. It’s uncomfortable to do this when the WG has argely been silent about how the leadership is selected.
>
> So could you please indicate your support or opposition to the following? Thanks.
>
> I would also ask the WG to avoid the temptation to rat-hole or over-think the selection procedure, for instance by proposing elaborate steps to apply in corner cases that in all probability will never arise. We're only appointing a WG co-chair, not the Internet's Supreme-Leader-for-Life. The WG can always change the suggested process later if practical experience proves it is broken or needs improvement.
>
> Note too that there is no mention of elections or votes. This is deliberate.
>
>
> (1) The IoT WG will have 2 co-chairs who serve staggered 2-year terms.
> (2) A co-chair cannot serve more than 3 consecutive terms.
> (3) Each year, the longest serving co-chair will stand down and subject to (2) may make themselves available for re-appointment.
> (4) The incoming co-chair will be chosen by the WG using consensus and the remaining co-chair will make the consensus determination.
> (5) Any circumstances not covered by the above will be resolved by the RIPE Chair whose  decision will be final.
>
>
> Vote early, vote often. Well OK, we don’t vote but I hope you get the point. :-)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> iot-wg mailing list
> iot-wg at ripe.net
> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/iot-wg