Nick, You believe the process needs to be paused. I do not agree.
As I and others have said yes, there are things that need to be addressed and unquestionably improved, but that was always going to happen. And I acknowledge that it will be five years before there is another run of the process, so it's not like there won't be a long period where the decisions made are in effect, but it is still the first time. And honestly, you say there isn't a problem with the process or document or people, then go on to say there is a problem with at least one, if not more, of them. I think it's clear that, in future the involvement of NCC staff in the NomCom (other than agreed secretariat roles) should be severely limited (ie I think Daniel should occupy the non-voting ex-Chair position for the next run, and then that's it) and there should be consideration given to limits or grace periods or the like where someone has been working for the NCC or on the Exec Board. In regards to payment, perhaps the simplest option there is to make it clear that at least for this 5 year period there will be no remuneration and that, if it is absolutely decided to go down this route, it's taken as a priority to figure out those details long before a new call for nominations goes out? I mean, I'm not a huge fan of the idea, in no small part for some of the governance & separation issues that have been discussed, but now is not the time for that debate. Are there improvements that can be made? Yes, I haven't seen anyone disagree with that, but I stand by the statement I made elsewhere in this thread. I don't think the issues raised are big enough to pause this or to need to change things. I'm not being glib here, I've thought a lot about the points you and others have raised, but this specific part of the RIPE Community is happy that the process is suitable independent of the NCC. I am very much trying to avoid falling into the sunk cost fallacy, albeit with any mental exercise it is always hardest to audit oneself. However we worked on the process, everyone is agreeing the candidates are a good bunch, and I have a genuine fear that if we do attempt to repair the plane mid-flight, then we'll set a precedent of being able to reach this point again and find something else to say "No" to, which should be fixed in the normal iteration cycle. There is an element of risk in continuing, just as there was in the first chair appointment, in the succession, in all of this. But both the safeguards (the recall etc) that are in the process and a greatly heightened awareness in the Community of the role of the Chair persuade me that while things could be better that they are not bad enough to need to take the pauses or steps you outline. I continue to support the NomCom and the continuation of this process to a speedy conclusion. Brian Brian Nisbet Service Operations Manager HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland +35316609040 [email protected] www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270 ________________________________ From: ripe-list <[email protected]> on behalf of Nick Hilliard <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday 27 May 2020 12:55 To: Gert Doering <[email protected]> Cc: Jim Reid <[email protected]>; Andy Davidson <[email protected]>; RIPE list <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [ripe-list] The NomCom Requests your Support CAUTION[External]: This email originated from outside of the organisation. Do not click on links or open the attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe. Gert Doering wrote on 26/05/2020 07:20: > We have a document that tells us what to do. We do that. > > In the middle of the road, concerns are voiced that the document is not > good enough - which might be a valid statement or not, but how should it > affect the current process, given the simultaneously expressed support for > all the persons involved? The problem is not with the process, or the document, and it is particularly not with the people involved. The problem is with the roles that some of the people involved in this process hold within the RIPE NCC, and the relationship between those roles. Specifically, the chair of the nomcom and one of the RIPE chair candidates are NCC employees who report to the RIPE NCC MD, who is also ad-interim RIPE Chair. We have a bottom-line expectation that the RIPE Chair is independent of the RIPE NCC, and this position has been expressed unequivocally by the nomcom. It is not tenable to hold this expectation and at the same time for the NomCom to be chaired by a RIPE NCC staff member, while one of the candidates is also a RIPE NCC staff member, and where the current RIPE Chair is the RIPE NCC MD. This situation was further complicated mid-process by the announcement that the RIPE Chair position would be funded by the RIPE NCC, thereby raising further questions about the ability of the RIPE Chair to maintain independence from the RIPE NCC. The timing of this announcement was also difficult, as it happened after the call for candidates was ended: this has likely cut out other people who may have been interested in the position but who could not afford to apply. The reality is that most people are simply not in a position to work on a free-gratis basis for several years at a time. If the NomCom follows through on the current trajectory, it will be difficult to defend against claims that the selection process and the resulting candidate were free from undue influence from the RIPE NCC. This will compromise the process, and the RIPE chair, and will raise questions about the RIPE Community's ability to govern itself. This would be unfortunate and unnecessary. As Erik Bais noted in a separate email, no-one is suggesting blowing up or restarting the nomcom or the process. I think generally people recognise and are sympathetic to the fact that this is a difficult, awkward and delicate situation for all, and particularly for the candidates. And also that it's a situation where external factors played a substantial part in forming. For the moment, the process needs to be paused. To move it forward: 1. if the positions of RIPE Chair and vice-Chair are to be paid, then the details of this need to be clarified, and if possible finalised, as soon as possible. Given that this is a fundamental shift in the position spec, there will either need to be a new call for applicants or a pretty clear justification about why this is not possible. As Gordon Lennox noted, sunk costs are not an adequate explanation. 2. The nomcom needs to consider whether people who are currently or have recently been working at the RIPE NCC at any level should be subject to timeout / grace periods to protect both the candidates and the position from suggestions of revolving doors. There's plenty of precedent and experience in this area of governance. 3. the RIPE community needs to understand whether the NomCom can continue to assert that the process is independent of the RIPE NCC given not just the individual impact of the issues raised, but also the cumulative impact of these issues. These are not easy questions to answer, or to remedy when they've been answered. Nick
