[ripe-list] Last Call for Draft: NRO NC Election Process (v3)

Hi,

I support Nurani's and Liman's suggestion that the qualification for
candidacy should be the same as for voting.

I also support moving more slowly. There was a time when this
community moved fast. But that was when the Internet was transitioning
from interesting to infrastructure. That transition has happened. The
community of affected people is significantly larger, so optimising
processes for transparency, as Liman suggests, is ideal.

Thanks,

Leo

On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 at 05:21, Lars-Johan Liman <liman at netnod.se> wrote:
>
> Miriam, Nurani,
>
> Thanks to both of you for doing this imporant work.
>
> Regarding candidacy ...
>
> I think I'm on Nurani's side here. While I can see the logic behind that
> such candidates wouldn't receive sufficient amounts of votes, that puts
> a lot of trust in that all involved players play by the – unwritten –
> rules of democracy. As too many recent examples have showed, a few also
> among the RIR communities, that is not always the case.
>
> An unsuitable, unknowing, or naïve candidate can receive many votes by
> (intentionally or unintentionally) overflowing the voter consituency
> with false or misleading information, and also by not being true to
> promises made as a nominee. To be able to take office without having
> given the RIPE community a chance to meet and interact with a nominee
> before they vote for her or him seems like something we don't want to
> happen. By "forcing" a candidate to interact with the community before
> standing for election, we give the community a small but important tool
> that can mitigate this problem.
>
> Also, I don't want processes to be too quick. Quick processes give more
> opportunities for "coups d'etat". I believe in processes that are slow,
> balanced, and transparent, and I find that transparency increases when
> processes are slow.
>
> I think requiring that a candidate attends a RIPE meeting or two before
> being nominated to office is good and sound process.
>
> Like Nurani, I also see a conflict/asymmetry between requiring it for
> voters but not for those who later get the power to make decisions on
> behalf of the voters.
>
>                                 Respectfully,
>                                   /Liman
>
> #----------------------------------------------------------------------
> # Lars-Johan Liman, M.Sc.               !  E-mail: liman at netnod.se
> # Senior Systems Specialist             !  Tel: +46 8 - 562 860 12
> # Netnod AB, Stockholm                  !  http://www.netnod.se/
> #----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> On 06/10/2023 14:05, Nurani Nimpuno wrote:
> >> <SNIP>
> >> Also, I think that if we agree that voting eligibility should be
> >> having attended at least one RIPE meeting in the past, shouldn’t we
> >> add this as a very bare minimum criterion for the candidate
> >> eligibility as well? (I would in fact say “having attended at least
> >> three previous RIPE meetings, but I don’t have strong opinions on
> >> the exact number”.)
>
> mir at zu-hause.nl 2023-10-09 07:57 [+0000]:
> > <SNIP>
> > So far I believe the community felt that candidates who don't have the
> > necessary skills and background will mostly likely not receive many
> > votes.  But let's see what others say.
>
> --
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ripe-list