> On 25 May 2020, at 23:42, Nick Hilliard <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> The concerns that were raised on the ripe-chair-discuss mailing list haven't
> been addressed.
>
> Rather than prompting for a mandate to "just get on with it", these issues
> need to be addressed.
With all due respect Nick, no they don’t. The concerns you and others have
raised have been heard. They don’t have to be addressed. They’ve been
accommodated. It’s been explained why it’s both impractical and unreasonable to
address those concerns at this time. Or to pause the current process until such
time as they could be addressed.
Those who disagree with that assessment are welcome to raise their concerns
with the NomCom. After all, the people raising these concerns have said that
they are not questioning the integrity or judgement of either the Nomcom or the
candidates. So in that case, the Nomcom and candidiates should be left to get
on with the job they *volunteered* to perform. Or are they not to be trusted
after all?
If the Nomcom can be trusted, raise these recent concerns through the
appropriate channel and let the Nomcom decide what to do about those concerns
since we can be sure they’ll do The Right Thing. It’s that simple. If the
Nomcom can’t be trusted, we have to blow up the appointment process -- good
luck getting consensus on a new one -- and then be forced to make even uglier
decisions about how to appoint a temporary replacement who may well be left
dangling for years. FWIW it took 4 years to get consensus on the current
selection process and start implementing it. Does anyone *really* want to start
all that again?
Remember that the current process is not cast in stone. It can (and very
probably will) get revised in light of the lessons learned from the first time
it’s been tried. That will be the proper time and place to address these recent
concerns. Please note these were raised long after the train had left the
station. We’d reached consensus on how Hans Petter’s successor was to be
appointed and put that process into effect. Unwinding it now is not a good look
at all.
IIUC RIPE uses the RFC7282 definition of consensus. That means we have rough
consensus that the current appointment process with the current NomCom and
current pool of candidates can go ahead as-is.
To quote from RFC7282:
3. Rough consensus is achieved when all issues are addressed, but not
necessarily accommodated
... Often, a working group
will encounter an objection where everyone understands the issue and
acknowledges that it is a real shortcoming in the proposed solution,
but the vast majority of the working group believes that
accommodating the objection is not worth the tradeoff of fixing the
problem.
Though for us s/working group/RIPE community/
Oh and in case there’s any doubt, I say to the Nomcom - just get on with it.
