[ripe-chair-discuss] The RIPE Chair Selection Process - v0.4

Daniel

On 01/04/2019 11:20, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:

> 
> However, the RIPE community could *ask* the EB to take on an additional
> role. That role would be to oversee the RIPE Chair selection process.
> This would *not* mean that the EB has any part in selecting the RIPE
> Chair. It would mean that the EB would appoint the non-voting SelCom
> chairperson, deal with process challenges and finally confirm that the
> selection process has been run correctly.

Certainly the community could ask the EB and I suspect that the EB would
accept the challenge.

> Jim Reid's concerns are a good indication that we need such a role.
> I suggest the EB because I cannot see another existing body that could
> fulfil it in a credible way.

Yes, I think Jim's concerns are worthy of being addressed. And, yes, I
agree with you that there doesn't seem to be an existing body that even
slightly fits the bill. So on the principle of of Non-Proliferation of
Essentially Single Purpose Internet Bodies and for sound ecological
reasons we probably should try and re-use the one's we've got. I'll
concede you the point, although it gives me some misgivings, and there
is enough degree of indirection that likely no harm will be done.

> The IETF 'uses' the ISOC board of trustees (BoT) for this role in the
> IAB selection process. The ISOC BoT has a primary role that is similar
> to the EB: oversee ISOC and in particular its finances. Yet the ISOC BoT
> has agreed to take on the additional role of overseeing the IAB
> selection process.
> 
> I believe that this way of doing things would work for us as well.
> It would make my task of adapting the IETF process to our needs much
> easier if we would at least contemplate this.

Agreed.

> I am currently working on the document that describes the SelCom. My
> plan is to write in a role for the RIPE NCC EB as described here. It
> would be very useful for me to hear from you, *and from others*, whether
> this has any chance of at least being considered. Otherwise I would have
> to become much more inventive than I am currently comfortable with. ;-)

No more single-use bodies. There are enough floating around in the
Internet Ocean as it is. I'll give you my support.

> Of course I remain curious about and open to other ideas on how to deal
> with process challenges and the concerns expressed by Jim.

Nigel