[iot-wg] extension of co-chair selection process

> On 25 Apr 2019, at 10:27, Daniel Karrenberg <dfk at ripe.net> wrote:
> 
>>  I do not see a need for a continued beauty contest but
>> would like to suggest instead to appoint both Sandoche and Peter. ...
> 
> Perfectly captures the RIPE spirit. Get on with it!

It's not that simple.

The WG has an agreed co-chair appointment process. It's in progress as I type. IMO we should let that process run its course and make a consensus determination in the usual way we do things at RIPE.

It would be a different story if the WG's process was clearly defective or there were extraordinary circumstances like the coop WG meltdown a couple of years ago. Neither of these things are true in this case.

If the WG wants to rip up its current process, that's fine. But it needs to say so and have good reason fortaking that course of action. Abandoning an agreed procedure -- and on what appears to be nothing more than a whim -- will set an ugly and dangerous precedent. What could be the next RIPE procedure that gets ignored or torn apart just because someone wants to "get on with it"? We should think *very* carefully about the consequences of such behaviour.

Of course if the WG wants to discard its agreed co-chair appointment procedure, that's fine. This would however be awkward with RIPE78 only a few weeks away. I very much doubt the WG could reach consensus on a new procedure in such a short amount of time and then activate that process so new co-chairs could be in place for Reykjavik.