Not complex at all: 4.5) any member of the RIPE Community may stand for chair, unless that person has been removed from the position of working group chair in the last 3 years.
Nick denis walker via db-wg wrote: > Hi Erik > > To be honest I don't think we need to make the rules over complex. If a > chair is removed by consensus and they stand again, the remaining chairs > can take the same consensus that removed the chair as a consensus > against that person being reappointed. I think the logic is their > without spelling it out. > > If the remaining chairs did reappoint the removed chair, I'm sure that > decision would be overturned on appeal to the RIPE Chair. > > cheers > denis > co-chair DB WG > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Erik Bais via db-wg <db-wg@ripe.net> > *To:* William Sylvester <william.sylves...@addrex.net> > *Cc:* Database WG <db-wg@ripe.net> > *Sent:* Wednesday, 20 December 2017, 12:38 > *Subject:* Re: [db-wg] Chair Selection Process Revision Proposal > > Hi William, > > I would like to support the proposed process. (with the additional > clarifications of the remarks of Niall.) > > If a chair would be removed by consensus, he/she should not be accepted > for the same position. > > Regards, > Erik Bais > > *From: *db-wg <db-wg-boun...@ripe.net> on behalf of William Sylvester > via db-wg <db-wg@ripe.net> > *Reply-To: *William Sylvester <william.sylves...@addrex.net> > *Date: *Monday 11 December 2017 at 18:41 > *To: *Database WG <db-wg@ripe.net> > *Subject: *[db-wg] Chair Selection Process Revision Proposal > > WG Members, > > 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. > > >
