Dear Bill, On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 05:40:39PM +0000, William Sylvester via db-wg wrote: > At the RIPE75 in Dubai, the working group chairs committed to > presenting a proposal for revising the chair selection process and > general housekeeping of the Database working group. This was motivated > from some of the challenges we experienced as a working group over the > past year. After taking a review of the other RIPE community working > groups, the proposal below represents what we feel Is a fair approach > to revise our current processes. This also includes clarification on > matters where previously our processes were unclear. This also > includes comments and feedback from members of the working group. > > Please express your support or otherwise for these changes, the intent > is to use this process for future chair selection including the > pending selection process due. > > Kind regards, > > William & Denis > DB-WG Co-Chairs > > Proposed revision to the Database Working Group chair selection process; > > 1) Number of chairs is a minimum of 2 with a maximum of 3. > 2) Chair can be removed at any time by consensus. > 3) Chair terms are staggered yearly. > 4) One chair per year is replaced. > 5) Working group selects chair by consensus. > 6) The consensus judgement will be made by the serving WG co-chair(s) and > will exclude the co-chair(s) who is the subject of that consensus judgement. > 7) Selection process is as follow; > 7.1) Interested parties have two weeks to make their interest known via the > mailing list, or directly to the Chair/s. > 7.2) After two weeks, the Chair/s ensure that all candidates are announced on > the mailing list and issue a call for discussion. > 7.3) WG members express their approval or otherwise of the presented > candidates. > 7.4) Two weeks after the call for discussion, the Chair/s declare a decision, > based on mailing list discussion, as they would do for a policy proposal. > 8) Any appeal over a consensus decision will be heard by the RIPE Chair (or > their deputy) whose decision shall be final. > 9) In the case more than one chair is up for selection at the same time, the > chair with the greatest support will take a multi-year term, the chair with > the least support will take the second longest term. Terms will be determined > by the number of chairs (3 chairs = 3 year term, 2 chairs = 2 year teams). > The intent is to maintain continuity of the working group chairs. So the > working group is never left without a chair.
I think the above is an improvement over the current process. Kind regards, Job
