[ripe-chair-discuss] Some observations and opinions.
Lars-Johan Liman liman at netnod.se
Mon Jul 16 22:27:12 CEST 2018
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