[ripe-chair-discuss] RIPE Chair Selection Process

> On 9 Oct 2018, at 01:09, Nick Hilliard <nick at foobar.org> wrote:
> 
> Jim Reid wrote on 08/10/2018 23:59:
>> There is*nothing*  in the current proposal which says this. Now
>> perhaps that language isn't clear enough. But it looks clear to me.
> 
> yes, but that isn't what I meant.  Consider the following:
> 
> 1. WGCC appoints nomcom
> 2. A WG chair throws hat into RIPE Chair ring
> 3. Nomcom, appointed by WGCC, selects that WG chair as candidate
> 4. WGCC selects that WG chair as RIPE chair-to-be
> 5. RIPE Community approves the selection
> 
> Are you ok with this as an outcome of the process?  I'm not.

I share this concern. This does not sound like a particularly sound process.

Nomcom
I also share some of the concerns raised by others on the list about the concept of simply adding tasks and responsibilities to the WG chairs and turn them into a Nomcom appointment group. 

I understand that it on the surface of things may seem simple and straightforward to use the existing structures we have by just using the WG chairs for this. But I think it is a wrong assumption to make to think that this is better or more straightforward and transparent than a separate, proper Nomcom mechanism. 

As others have pointed out, when we select our WG chairs, we do so for their competence and ability to chair a particular WG, not because we elect them as some sort of general “RIPE community elders” to whom we give all the deciding powers in the community in all sorts of different areas. This concept worries me greatly. 

I believe having a proper Nomcom mechanism is more in the spirit of the bottom-up and transparent nature of this community.

Vice chair
As for the rest of the proposal, I think the concept of a vice chair is a sound one, but would like there to be a clear description of the role of the vice chair. I also believe this role should be rather limited.

Tenure
- Five-year term
I believe that a five-year term is very long. I support Liman’s very valid comments that in that it may dramatically limit the pool of potential candidates, and that five years is a very long time to replace a poorly performing chair. 

- Two-term limit
I strongly support a two-term limit. 

Cheers,

Nurani 


> 
> Nick
>