> On 25 Nov 2014, at 12:37, Nick Hilliard <n...@foobar.org> wrote: > > On 25/11/2014 12:09, Jim Reid wrote: >> In case anyone cares, here's that proposed text again. > > Jim, the proposal is non-deterministic. There's no discriminator in place > to decide who gets to stand down if N changes and two chairs need to stand > down at the same time, or if somehow the chair terms become synchronised. > Drawing lots is fine but where, how, who, what? What happens if the WG > goes to blazes and there's only one chair and that chair is subject of a > mutiny? > > Maybe this isn't important and we can do the usual trick of sweeping it > under the carpet and pretending that it doesn't exist / isn't a problem / > oh look at the nice view out the window over there. > > Nick
I agree that this is a (Small) flaw. However we can t actually plan for every eventuality and I think as a group of we are grown up enough to deal with this is a sensible way if it ever comes up.. - The proposal gets my support.. Michael > >> >> # >> # $Id: appointment,v 1.6 2014/10/06 11:46:56 jim Exp $ >> # >> [1] The DNS WG will have N co-chairs. N will normally be 2 or 3, as >> determined by the WG. >> >> [2] A co-chair will serve a term of N years, where N is the number >> of co-chairs. Terms will be staggered so that one term expires every >> year. A co-chair cannot serve more than 2 consecutive terms. >> >> [3] The WG will be given adequate notice that a co-chair's term is >> ending and to invite applications for that position. Anyone can >> volunteer for appointment. >> >> [4] At the end of a co-chair's term, the WG will decide by consensus >> who is appointed to the available co-chair position. In the event of a >> tie, the consensus tied candidates will draw lots. >> >> [5] The WG may decide by consensus to remove a WG co-chair at any time. >> >> [6] Consensus will be determined on the DNS WG mailing list. The consensus >> judgement will be made by the serving WG co-chair(s) and will exclude the >> co-chair who is the subject of that consensus judgement. >> >> [7] Any appeal over a consensus decision will be heard by the RIPE Chair >> (or their deputy) whose decision shall be final. >> > >
