[ripe-chair-discuss] Some observations and opinions.

Hi!

TL;DR;version: This is mostly quite OK, but a few clarifications are
needed. I also have a few questions about left-out parts.


I took a look at the proposed process, and there is much about it that I
like. However, I think there are few areas where I think we need to make
sure that there is consensus in the wider community. I want to lift the
following passages "for inspection", if only to hear 200x of "yes,
that's good!". ;-)


COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED TEXT
-----------------------------

    The selection process should be lightweight and easy to implement
    but documented for clarity and accountability purposes. Most
    importantly, it should be determined by consensus within the RIPE
    community.

Liman: for the mentioned accountability puprposes, it also need to be
described in a _concise_ manner. It must be easy for and "auditor" to
determine whether the process has been followed or not.

    The candidate pool

    The NomCom will solicit nominations from the community and publish a
    list of suitable candidates.

Liman: I think we might want to add a few words to suppport the term
"suitable", aiming to make a statement that the NomCom should strive to
be non-discriminatory in producing its slate, and that variety in gender
and other parameters is to be encouraged. However, that might already be
sufficiently well stated in "general" documents for RIPE and its
activities, and if so, I suggest adding text to the process that refers
to these other documents (in order to avoid duplicating text).

    The selection process

    After a shortlist of potential candidates has been identified, the
    NomCom will hand it over to the WG Chair collective who will make the
    final decision.

    The WG Chair collective will actively gather feedback from the
    community about each candidate. Based on this feedback, the WG
    Chairs collective will select the best candidate for the job.

Liman: This process worries me somewhat. The WG chairs are put in place
for their qualities when it comes to leading work in the WGs, not
because of their opinions and judgement wrt. selecting a RIPE chair. (No
offence to the current WG Chairs.) These are distinctly different
qualities. At a bare minimum we must make sure that these added WG Chair
responsibilities are made very obvious to the people who select the WG
Chairs, so that informed decisions can be made.

    Tenure

    The RIPE Chair will serve a five-year term ...

Liman: this strikes me as a rather long tenure. It needs to be long
enough for the chair to build up experience and become useful, and some
projects that the Chair might initiate could take long time. OTOH,
finding people who are willing and able to make the necessary
committments for such a long tenure could possibly limit the pool of
candidates to people with "large and wealthy" organisations behind them,
who can afford to support this work for extended periods. In addition,
if a selected Chair turns out to perform poorly, having to wait five
years for an opportunity to replace him/her strikes me as a long time.

    ... with a two-term limit.

Liman: I support this _strongly_! In my view the two-term limit is
non-negotiable. I've seen how bad it can be when there is no term limit.
No chair is so outstanding that this rule needs to be broken. However,
the text is inconclusive about whether a candidate can be eligible for
more two-term tenures after having stepped down for a year after a first
(i.e., allowed to do a "comeback"). I usually say "yes, they can" when
this is asked, but my only strong opinion is that it should be
well-defined in the text.

    Vice Chair

    A new RIPE Vice Chair role will be created to support the RIPE
    Chair. This role will be filled according to the same process as
    that used for the RIPE Chair selection. There is no assumption that
    the Vice Chair would automatically become the RIPE Chair by default,
    but they would be free to put themselves forward (to be considered
    by the NomCom) for a vacant RIPE Chair position.

This is all good, but needs to be augmented (probably elsewhere) with a
clear description of the responsibilies of the Vice Chair vis-à-vis
those of the Chair, so that both the candidates and the community
understand what's expected.


OTHER COMMENTS
--------------

* The _process_ through which the WG Chairs finally arrive at their
  decision about a new chair is not defined here. Is it defined in other
  documents? Need it be at all, or will it just make the entier process
  unnecessarily heavy-weight?

* Should there be a way to forcefully relieve a Chair of his/her duties?
  Are we sufficiently convinced that the NomCom is able to weed out bad
  candidates, so the probability that this will be needed is so low that
  we don't spend effort on it here and now? Is it defined elsewhere?
  Shall we deal with that problem if it hits us? The latter could work
  for me, as long as we all agree that that's the proposed way forward.

* What happens if a non-neglectable group of members of the comomunity
  feel that the selection process hasn't been followed appropriately?
  RIPE Arbiters? External auditor? Further steps? Need we define at all?


YOUR DIRECT QUESTIONS
---------------------

    Do you agree that a NomCom is a good way to identify a list of
    potential candidates?

Liman: yes, this is a good idea. It's proven to work well in other
communities (e.g., the IETF).

    Do you agree that a tenure of five years with a two-term limit is a
    suitable way to ensure continuity, stability and the opportunity for
    change in the RIPE community?

Liman: not entirely. Limit is paramount, though! See my comment above.

    Do you agree that having a RIPE Vice Chair would be useful and that
    the Vice Chair should be selected following the same process as the
    RIPE Chair?

Liman: yes, this is a good idea, but see my comment above.


I now look forward to respectful, intense, and refreshing discussion.
BRING IT ON! :-) :-) :-)

				Cheers,
				  /Liman
#----------------------------------------------------------------------
# Lars-Johan Liman, M.Sc.               !  E-mail: liman at netnod.se
# Senior Systems Specialist             !  Tel: +46 8 - 562 860 12
# Netnod Internet Exchange, Stockholm   !  http://www.netnod.se/
#----------------------------------------------------------------------