> On Oct 15, 2020, at 6:24 PM, Jim Reid wrote:
>
>> On 15 Oct 2020, at 22:47, Dave Knight wrote:
>
>> If the working group feels strongly about encouraging new faces perhaps we
>> should amend the process such that new co-chairs may servce onlky a single
>> term?
>
> I’m not sure. Serving
dknight> I struggle to reconcile our efforts toward impartiality with
dknight> the notion of having the chairs encouraging a preferred
dknight> candidate.
jim> It depends on what's meant by encouragement. I'm fairly sure Paul
jim> means approaching someone (or more than one) and saying "Have you
> On 15 Oct 2020, at 23:40, Leo Vegoda wrote:
>
> Succession planning is good but placing the burden on the chairs themselves
> seems a lot to ask.
I strongly disagree Leo. For one thing, any burden from things like this is why
WG co-chairs get the big bucks. :-) When you’re in a leadership
> On 16 Oct 2020, at 00:00, Dave Knight wrote:
>
>> Maybe have the outgoing and existing chairs explicitly go out and
>> encourage someone who hasn't served before to volunteer?
>
> I struggle to reconcile our efforts toward impartiality with the notion of
> having the chairs encouraging a p
> On Oct 15, 2020, at 6:25 PM, Paul Ebersman
> wrote:
>
> dave> If the working group feels strongly about encouraging new faces
> dave> perhaps we should amend the process such that new co-chairs may
> dave> servce onlky a single term?
>
> Maybe have the outgoing and existing chairs explicit
On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 3:24 PM Jim Reid wrote:
[...]
> I’m not sure. Serving a single three year term seems too short IMO. A bit
> more stability would be desirable. Besides, is it the selection procedure
> that's discouraging new faces or could it be the incumbents are doing such a
> good j
dave> If the working group feels strongly about encouraging new faces
dave> perhaps we should amend the process such that new co-chairs may
dave> servce onlky a single term?
Maybe have the outgoing and existing chairs explicitly go out and
encourage someone who hasn't served before to volunteer? A
> On 15 Oct 2020, at 22:47, Dave Knight wrote:
>
> The new process has been exercised several times since then with these results
>
> Nov 2015, RIPE 71 Peter Koch was succeeded by Dave Knight for a 3 year term
> Oct 2016, RIPE 73 Jim Reid was succeeded by Shane Kerr for a 3 year term
> Oct
Randy,
> On Oct 15, 2020, at 4:01 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>
> hi joão,
>
>> I agree with you and that’s why i pushed for the dns wg to have a
>> blind period of candidate collection during which no one sees who else
>> might be volunteering. What you see now is the publication of the
>> candidat
hi joão,
> I agree with you and that’s why i pushed for the dns wg to have a
> blind period of candidate collection during which no one sees who else
> might be volunteering. What you see now is the publication of the
> candidate list after that period elapsed. Turns out no one else
> volunteered
> On 15 Oct 2020, at 20:30, Janos Zsako wrote:
>
> I think putting a term limit may prevent talented people from serving the
> community in spite of their willingness to continue their useful work.
I agree and disagree with this Janos. Term limits might well mean somebody good
gets forced to
Hi Randy
I agree with you and that’s why i pushed for the dns wg to have a blind period
of candidate collection during which no one sees who else might be
volunteering. What you see now is the publication of the candidate list after
that period elapsed. Turns out no one else volunteered
On top
Dear Randy,
With all respect my respect for you, I still support Joao.
o we might think about term limits
I think putting a term limit may prevent talented people from serving the
community in spite of their willingness to continue their useful work.
If there were many candidates with sim
> On 15 Oct 2020, at 18:47, Randy Bush wrote:
>
>
> o no +1s. leave it until the actual election
RIPE does not vote!!! Important decisions get taken by consensus, not elections.
It’s beyond stupid to talk about an election or use that mechanism when there
are no eligibility criteria on w
> Supporting Joao is a no-brainer - +1
actually, i would suggest it is not.
[ aside: i like joão, and think he has done a fine job. i might join
the +1s, except for the following ]
i thought we wanted to encourage new/young folk to enter and play. when
we have an 'election' and an incumbent
> On 10/14/20 3:29 PM, Dave Knight wrote:
> > Please offer whatever support (or opposition) you have for Joao on the list.
Supporting Joao is a no-brainer - +1
Elmar.
16 matches
Mail list logo
