[ripe-chair-discuss] Chair nomination process

Dear all,

On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 11:59:38AM +0200, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
> Just to get the premises right: you keep claiming that a Spanish wall
> between RIPE and the RIPE NCC is either codified in or processes or
> our practice. As Gert pointed out the former is not the case. I have
> pointed out anecdotal evidence that the latter is not a tradition
> either. So claiming that this ‘sits at the heart of our community
> values’ appears far fetched to me.

If the practise of this wall does not exist in tradition, why does it
appear to me most RIPE NCC employees are discouraged to speak out in
public? Corollary, I think the notion of a difference between RIPE and
RIPE NCC appears to exist from the very process this mailing list is
about (selection chair/vice chair positions for RIPE, which clearly is
different than selecting leadership positions in RIPE NCC).

None of what follows below appears optimal to me. I have confidence in
the individuals involved, but my confidence in the process's ability to
be executed and conclude successfully at present is faltering a bit. I
recognise a lot of people put a lot of work into this project, as such
what I share here may result in hurt. :-( At the end of the day this is
all about real humans and the real Internet, where we must protect each
other from the negative impact of conflict of interest.

Possible paths forward, hopefully pragmatic:

1/ Until we have more clarity/consensus on the intertwined RIPE & RIPE
NCC story, for me the current situation is drastically simplified if
staff members of the RIPE NCC do not appear on the list of eligible
nominees presented to the NOMCOM. However, if we follow through on that
we may end up with a slate of 3 people, to fill 2 positions, which as
Nurani pointed out might not be sufficient for robust process. :-(

2/ Another approach could be to (*before* completing this year's NOMCOM
process) ensure that whoever are selected & confirmed will be given an
opportunity to become salaried employees of the RIPE NCC organisation.
This would create a somewhat more level playing field for all nominees
(and of course whoever is confirmed will not be terminated after their
term is up, or what would the community expect to happen here?).

3/ Restart the process as many times is needed until a sufficiently
large pool of nominees exists so the confirming body has more assurances
proper deliberations resulted in the selection.

Even if one does not see potential for conflict of interest in the
current situation, I do see potential for significant trouble should
conflict of interest arise at any future point in time.

Let's please buy ourselves more time to refine this process. 

Kind regards,

Job