I strongly support the proposal that a WG Chair serves a term of N years and also cannot serve more than 2 consecutive terms, I also agree with Nick that adding something into the language to make it clear that a previous chair can be re-elected following a set period would be a good move.
Brett Carr Nominet. On 05/01/2015 17:33, "Jim Reid" <j...@rfc1035.com> wrote: >Happy new year everyone. > >The list has been silent about the draft selection procedure. This means >it's not possible to decide if there's a consensus or not so we can >declare victory and move on. Sigh. Could I ask you all to review the >proposal and comment on the list? > >One sticking point appears to be the "A co-chair cannot serve more than 2 >consecutive terms." provision in [2]. Someone commented at the mike at >RIPE69 that this was a good thing. One of your co-chairs says the >opposite. Everyone else has not commented one way or the other. Result: >stalemate. > >WGs are supposed to have adopted a selection process by now and have it >up and running in good time for RIPE70. Our WG is lagging behind the >others. So, could we please have some comments on the proposed procedure >and try to get the WG to converge on a consensus? Thanks. > >It would be appreciated if people gave clear statements of support or >objection. In the latter case, please explain why and suggest alternate >text. Simply saying "I disagree" will not be constructive. Though it >would of course help with the consensus determination. > >Here's the suggested process again: > ># ># $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.
