[ripe-chair-discuss] RIPE Chair Selection Process

On 8 Oct 2018, at 17:21, Peter Koch <pk at DENIC.DE> wrote:
> 
> I share this concern, both regarding the convener function as well
> as the final appointig function.  

Peter, you are mistaken. The final appointing function rests with the RIPE community, not the proposed Nomcom. Or the WGCC. The document explicitly says this: "The RIPE community will endorse the candidate put forward by the WG Chair collective."

> The engineering reason is that technically the RIPE chair presides the "collective" and thus would have an essential role in the process.

That’s a non sequitur. Besides, it's easily solved: the RIPE Chair recuses themself from any discussion about the composition of the Nomcom and does not get involved in its working methods or its recommendations. Which is an obvious no-brainer. Or should be. If we can’t trust our Dear Leader to do the Right Thing in this situation, we have much more serious problems to resolve.

There seemed to be a consensus emerging around something I posted a while back:

> 	NomCom recommends
> 	WGCC selects
> 	Community approves
> 
> This would give us a reasonable set of checks and balances that allows the
> community to retain overall control without getting bogged down in the
> implementation detail of the selection machinery.

It would be unfortunate if these general principles are lost. More so if they get buried under an open-ended discussion about process that will outlast the heat death of the universe.

I urge those who express unhappiness with the current proposal to be constructive. Please supply text. ie A suggestion of a better procedure. Just objecting without offering an alternative or improvements is not helpful.