> On 24 Nov 2017, at 23:15, Erik Bais <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear RIPE community members and RIPE Exec Board, > > As proposed during the GM in Dubai, I would like to discuss if it is possible > to change the Chair position of RIPE into a full-time paid position.
I have mixed feelings about this. I think the post could be a paid one, but perhaps on a part-time rather than full-time basis. Chairman of RIPE takes up a lot of time and it doesn’t seem right that whoever has that position needs to rely on the goodwill of their employer if they happen to have a day job. This could also diminish the pool of candidates to pick from whenever there’s a vacancy: only those with a generous and supportive employer need apply. Or when the ideal choice is able to arrange unpaid leave from $dayjob, they’d need compensation for that loss of income. So maybe this is where NCC support could help. I also think we’re well past the point where certain leadership responsibilities can expect to be operated on a volunteer, best-efforts basis. [This is true across the Internet sector, not just at RIPE. Someone here mentioned the IETF’s Area Directors for example.] We need to adapt as circumstances change. The RIPE community today is a very different thing from what it was in its early days. The role of a volunteer, unpaid Chairman we had back then might well be unsustainable now. On the other hand, this approach further blurs the boundaries between RIPE and RIPE NCC. That’s probably a bad thing. It will also create conflicts of interest. Suppose the RIPE Chairman has to ask the NCC to do something that the RIPE community has agreed but isn’t fully accepted the NCC membership. Imagine the difficulties at the NCC AGM, assuming the RIPE Chairman was allowed to attend: “Why are we paying your salary to propose stuff we don’t accept?”. If the NCC pays the RIPE Chairman’s salary, this will create undesirable opportunities for the NCC membership to interfere and micro-manage. For instance demanding the RIPE Chairman obeys or is somehow accountable to the NCC membership instead of the RIPE Community. That could get awkward even when the NCC membership and RIPE Community are in violent agreement about everything. We should think *very* carefully before going down that path. Turning this into a paid position is likely to attract unwelcome candidates for the job. ie They want to become RIPE Chairman for the lavish salary and fine dinners rather than to represent the interests of the RIPE community. This will be even more of a concern if we end up making the mistake of using elections to appoint Hans Petter’s successor. Perhaps the best approach here would be a lightweight mechanism like the one available to ICANN board members: another volunteeer position with very demanding commitments. Stipends are available to board members who ask for them. These payments cover (part of) the salaries from their dayjobs and ICANN gets board members who in theory are able dedicate enough of their time to those duties. That way, board members are not limited to those who have understanding employers that can underwrite their employee’s ICANN board duties. IIUC not all ICANN board members get paid by ICANN. Maybe we could try something similar?
