> On 26 May 2020, at 10:10, Erik Bais <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I hope that we don't Runout-runout of Interim Interim RIPE Chairs before we
> complete this
Those who are raising concerns need to think *very* carefully about the
consequences of introducing these (unnecessary IMO) additional risks and
uncertainties at this late stage. A runout-runout of interim-interim RIPE
Chairmen is just the tip of the iceberg. Here are some of the others:
1) Derailing a community-agreed process *while it is under way* because a few
people don't like the initial outcomes sets a very ugly and dangerous
precedent. More so when they said nothing at the time when each of those agreed
milestones had been reached and there were opportunities to comment on them.
2) Appointing another interim RIPE Chairman is the responsibility of the WG
Chairs, a group that is dysfunctional at taking decisions. How long will it
take them to make their mind up? Assuming they can find people who would be
willing and capable of performing in that role. Which is yet another big
risk/uncertainty.
3) Knowing the prevailing circumstances, who would choose to step into this
mess and serve as interim RIPE Chairman? And imagine the conversations with
their employer or family: “I’m going to take an unpaid full-time job for an
unknown length of time while RIPE bickers. Hope that’s OK with you.”.
4) Pausing (or whatever) the current process effectively tells the Nomcom they
don’t have the community’s confidence. If I was on the Nomcom, I’d quit if that
happened. I wouldn’t want to be considered as a replacement for anyone who did
quit either. What do we do when good people walk away from the Nomcom and/or
decline to replace those who did?
5) Pausing (or whatever) the current process effectively tells the current
candidates they don’t have the community’s confidence. One way or another
they’re being told they’re not “good enough”. If I was one of them, I’d
withdraw. What do we do when excellent candidates walk away? What happens if
nobody else comes forward? Remember they’ll have seen how dreadfully the
current candidates have been treated. Who’d choose to go through that?
6) What happens if more candidates do come forward during this pause and they
turn out to be unsuitable too? [For some definition of unsuitable.] Do we pause
again (and again) until we come up with a mix of candidates that gets
near-unanimous approval? And what do we do in the interim?
Are these risks and uncertainties worth it? I don’t think so.
Gert summed up the situation very well:
> We do have a good set of very talented and widely recognized nominees.
>
> Would it be good to have a wider selection? Maybe.
>
> Have all these other people of talent come forward and volunteered? No.
>
> What shall we do?
