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

The RIPE spirit is to be flexible and pragmatic with any procedure as
the situation requires.

In my reality the current situation is that both candidates have support
and no clear consensus regarding a preference for either candidate
exists. This is in keeping with the RIPE spirit that we accept all
volunteers and avoid unnecessary choices between persons.

Unless a preference suddenly develops, the pragmatic thing to do is to
appoint both and to leave it to the co-chairs to sort out the details,
both now and in a year's time at the next selection moment.
I somehow feel a consensus developing here in roughly that direction.

Daniel

On 25/04/2019 16:08, Jim Reid wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 25 Apr 2019, at 07:49, Peter Koch <pk at DENIC.DE> wrote:
>>
>> I do not see a need for a continued beauty contest but
>> would like to suggest instead to appoint both Sandoche and Peter.
> 
> Well, I want a pony and I want it now. :-)
> 
> 1) The WG's agreed co-chair selection procedure does not permit a double appointment.
> 
> 2) Appointment and co-chair terms are deliberately staggered to allow for succession planning and continuity. Installing two candidates at the same time destroys that.
> 
> 3) The agreed appointment process is actually in progress. It would not be fair to the candidates or the WG to rip all that up and start again. That would also be confusing for everyone. More so when the current process is under way and hopefully close to a resolution.
> 
> 4) Changing the rules without good reason -- just "get on with it" is not a strong enough justification IMO -- sets a very dangerous and ugly precedent. How many more RIPE processes will we choose to ignore whenever we feel like it? Think carefully about the consequences of going down that path.
> 
> 5) A new appointment process would need to be agreed and activated to appoint both Sandoche and Peter. Handwave, handwave. Assuming they'd be the only candidates. Given how long it took for the WG to reach consensus on the current process, I doubt a replacement mechanism could be found quickly or that the WG would reach consensus on it any time soon: certainly not before RIPE78. And then once that new process was put into effect, we'd need to allow several weeks for candidates to come forward and the WG reach consensus on who they want. That's already proving difficult. Fewer than 10 or so people have expressed a preference for either Peter or Sandoche so far.
> 
>> That would ease the onboarding process, as well.
> 
> It would do the very opposite because the WG would be lead by two fine individuals who had never run a RIPE WG before and now find themselves thrown in at the deep end.
> _______________________________________________
> iot-wg mailing list
> iot-wg at ripe.net
> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/iot-wg
>