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

liman at netnod.se:
>> * 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?

> This seems to be unnecessary detail IMO. The NomCom shouldn't need to
> turn to a document to tell the difference between good and bad
> candidates. If they do, the wrong people are on the NomCom. Likewise,
> the WG Chairs Collective -- assuming they have a role in the selection
> process -- shouldn't need another document whch tells them whether the
> NomCom's recommendation is or isn't a good one.

> We should be able to trust those who will be assessing potential
> candidates to use their common sense and make rational decisions.
> Looking to a rule book or a prescriptive procedure would be a huge
> mistake. What do you do when something happens that isn't covered by
> the rules and procedures? And no, the answer to that rhetorical
> question is not to come up with a document which tries (and inevitably
> fails) to cover every possible scenario which might arise.

Umm, I think you're describing a different situation than the one I
indended to address.

I don't mean that there should be documenation in place to guide in the
selection. I fully agree that common sense should be sufficient for the
NomCom and WG Chairs procedures.

I worry about the case where excellent common sense selected a perfect
Chair, who over time (intoxicated by his/her unlimited powers ... ;-)
turns into a less perfect Chair during his/her tenure?

>> 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.

> IMO, we don't need to over-engineer things or over-think the problem,
> especially for events that are highly improbable. We might as well
> write up something to define the process to follow after the Lizard
> People have taken control of the WG Chairs Collective and appointed
> the Loch Ness Monster as our new leader.

Well ... but yes. ;-)

> If we ever get to the situation where someone has to be forcibly
> removed, it should be sufficient for the community to say "we don't
> want you any more - go". And it will be done.

I'm happy to have it that way, as long as it's not a surprise to anyone.

> BTW, I think that would also deal with your concern about having to
> endure some years with an ineffective Chair waiting for their term to
> expire.

Agreed. It would.

				Cheers,
				  /Liman