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

[long, but lots of real content, promise! ;-)]

Jim,

To be sure: I value your contribution and understand your concern. I
just do not agree with your proposed process and the text you propose.

Consensus is not the right method to select persons. It works, somewhat,
for roles that are mostly work and little perceived glory/power.
It *does not* work for roles that have a lot of perceived glory/power
and are therefore likely to be contested.

Likely scenario: there are two credible persons for a role. The one not
selected, and more importantly some of their supporters, will not agree
with the selection. This may be aggravated by the fact that the person
who *was* selected is disliked by some in that group. Consensus is
therefore extremely unlikely. Achieving consensus supposes that most
supporters of the not-selected person will be wise enough to accept and
support the selection they did not wish to see happen. Experience shows
that his is not likely. This means that, if consensus is required, a
vocal minority can block the selection. Furthermore: who would have to
make that consensus call? The current chair who may be up for
re-selection? Then, how likely is it that the same SelCom will come to a
different selection?  Again: this scenario is likely to happen and
consensus will not work here!

Therefore we should emulate the IETF and *not* use consensus in the process.

If this convinces you and current proposed process is now OK for you,
read no further. ;-)

Speaking about emulating the IETF: the IETF uses confirmation of NomCom
selections by other bodies. For instance, the selection of people for
the IAB is confirmed by the ISOC board. I have been there and done that.
As chairman of the trustees I made every effort to avoid *any* formal
discussion on these confirmations even within this small group of
sensible people. But if there had been any doubt about the NomCom
*process* we *would* have discussed that at length and I would like to
think we would have taken reasonable action. Luckily during my service
on the board all confirmations happened within seconds of meeting time.

Looking around for a credible confirming body within the RIPE
'ecosystem' the only one that comes to my mind is the RIPE NCC board. We
could propose a process by which the RIPE NCC board confirms the SelCom
selections. That would also nicely solve a number of challenges with the
SelCom process itself. However this would come at a price: First, we
would deepen the entanglement between RIPE and RIPE NCC; something which
we have avoided so far as much as possible. Second, it could easily be
spun/misunderstood as the RIPE NCC *selecting* the RIPE chair or at
least having undue influence on the selection. And third, it would make
members of the RIPE NCC board a-priori unavailable for serving on the
SelCom or to put themselves forward for any role the SelCom make the
selection for. To my mind this price could be acceptable. Of course this
also assumes that the RIPE NCC board can be convinced to accept the task.

Would this process provide the checks and balances you seek?

If yes, let's start to see if such a proposal could get community
consensus and let's convince the NCC board to do it. I volunteer to
propose language and it would help with finishing the SelCom proposal
too. How about that? ;-)

If you still insist on using consensus, your proposed text needs to be
more specific about at least

- how and by whom consensus is determined,
- the timeline for the re-selection(s),
- how we deal with the obvious risk of an infinite loop, and
- continuity, e.g. who fills the roles in the meantime and what if they
are no longer willing or available.

Can others please speak up so that this does not become a dialogue but a
community discussion? And: text please!

Nobody said this was easy .... if it was Rob would have 'just done it'.

Daniel