Hi, Jim > On 28/05/2020, 06:58, "Jim Reid" <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 27 May 2020, at 16:21, Andy Davidson <[email protected]> wrote: > > If governance is improved by seeing the Community and NCC separation in the > > work of our > > committees then let's have that improvement for THIS selection. We can > > ensure this quickly > > (without even delaying the chair appointment) by altering the constitution > > of those committees > > today > Altering the constitution (composition?) of the Nomcom -- which is > presumably one of “those > committees” -- means changing RFC728. That will be a very slow and painful > exercise.
Yes, composition. And it does not mean improving RIPE-728 instantly, just some concrete actions by members which solve this conflict of interest at play whilst the work continues. > Suppose none of the other Nomcom members are prepared to serve as its > Chairman if Daniel is > thought to be no longer acceptable in that role. What then? I think better of the people on the Nom-com than to assume they would do that. I think better of Daniel than a supposition that he would want or encourage them to do that. > What if some of the Nomcom quit in disgust because of these shenanigans? Are > these risks worth it? We can all play the what if game - what if people are turned off by participating in our community because we are seen to do nothing when there is a governance problem? In the past, the RIPE Community Chair and the chair of a RIPE Committee/Task Force/Working Group could have had a conversation about a problem regarding RIPE community oversight to an NCC person or function or service. Right now, they can't because the RIPE Chair and the Chair of this Committee *work for the NCC*, and one reports to the other. Do you not see how this is a governance problem, however accidentally derived? Yes or no? Andy
