[ripe-list] The NomCom Requests your Support

Gert Doering wrote on 26/05/2020 07:20:
> We have a document that tells us what to do.  We do that.
> 
> In the middle of the road, concerns are voiced that the document is not
> good enough - which might be a valid statement or not, but how should it
> affect the current process, given the simultaneously expressed support for
> all the persons involved?

The problem is not with the process, or the document, and it is 
particularly not with the people involved.

The problem is with the roles that some of the people involved in this 
process hold within the RIPE NCC, and the relationship between those 
roles.  Specifically, the chair of the nomcom and one of the RIPE chair 
candidates are NCC employees who report to the RIPE NCC MD, who is also 
ad-interim RIPE Chair.

We have a bottom-line expectation that the RIPE Chair is independent of 
the RIPE NCC, and this position has been expressed unequivocally by the 
nomcom.

It is not tenable to hold this expectation and at the same time for the 
NomCom to be chaired by a RIPE NCC staff member, while one of the 
candidates is also a RIPE NCC staff member, and where the current RIPE 
Chair is the RIPE NCC MD.

This situation was further complicated mid-process by the announcement 
that the RIPE Chair position would be funded by the RIPE NCC, thereby 
raising further questions about the ability of the RIPE Chair to 
maintain independence from the RIPE NCC.

The timing of this announcement was also difficult, as it happened after 
the call for candidates was ended: this has likely cut out other people 
who may have been interested in the position but who could not afford to 
apply.  The reality is that most people are simply not in a position to 
work on a free-gratis basis for several years at a time.

If the NomCom follows through on the current trajectory, it will be 
difficult to defend against claims that the selection process and the 
resulting candidate were free from undue influence from the RIPE NCC. 
This will compromise the process, and the RIPE chair, and will raise 
questions about the RIPE Community's ability to govern itself.  This 
would be unfortunate and unnecessary.

As Erik Bais noted in a separate email, no-one is suggesting blowing up 
or restarting the nomcom or the process.  I think generally people 
recognise and are sympathetic to the fact that this is a difficult, 
awkward and delicate situation for all, and particularly for the 
candidates.  And also that it's a situation where external factors 
played a substantial part in forming.

For the moment, the process needs to be paused.

To move it forward:

1. if the positions of RIPE Chair and vice-Chair are to be paid, then 
the details of this need to be clarified, and if possible finalised, as 
soon as possible.  Given that this is a fundamental shift in the 
position spec, there will either need to be a new call for applicants or 
a pretty clear justification about why this is not possible.  As Gordon 
Lennox noted, sunk costs are not an adequate explanation.

2. The nomcom needs to consider whether people who are currently or have 
recently been working at the RIPE NCC at any level should be subject to 
timeout / grace periods to protect both the candidates and the position 
from suggestions of revolving doors.  There's plenty of precedent and 
experience in this area of governance.

3. the RIPE community needs to understand whether the NomCom can 
continue to assert that the process is independent of the RIPE NCC given 
not just the individual impact of the issues raised, but also the 
cumulative impact of these issues.

These are not easy questions to answer, or to remedy when they've been 
answered.

Nick