[ripe-chair-discuss] WG Chair selection

To me it is not an entirely separate discussion because the proposal puts the RIPE Chair selection at the WG Chairs Collective’s hands to a large extend. 

So expect people to question how these people are selected in the first place in this thread as well.

Filiz

> On 9 Oct 2018, at 15:14, Jim Reid <jim at rfc1035.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On 9 Oct 2018, at 11:00, Filiz Yilmaz <koalafil at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> To explain my concerns further; RIPE WG Chair Selection process is not a uniform one and every group is left to decide on their selection process. This was largely because WGs or their Chairs at the time could not agree on an uniform process across RIPE.
> 
> Filiz, that’s a discussion for another thread on another mailing list. IMO the fact there’s no over-arching WG Chair selection process is a strength, not a weakness. It’s also a feature of bottom-up decision making. Each WG gets to decide for itself how the WG is best run. Embrace diversity. :-)
> 
> Oh, and since those WG Chair mechanisms have come into effect, there has been a healthy but prudent turnover in WG leadership. A complete regime change has taken place in DNS and IPv6. Other WGs are not far behind. Most selection procedures incorporate term limits too.
> 
> Future discussion on this topic should be moved to another list.
>