Dear all, There seem to be many parallel discussions around this in different RIPE groups. I will make my comments here as a RIPE community member.
> On 28 May 2020, at 10:57, Christian Kaufmann <[email protected]> wrote: > > 2nd try.... > >> On 28. May 2020, at 10:38, Christian Kaufmann <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Dear NomCom, >> Dear Community, >> >> The independence and stability of the RIPE Chair role is the highest >> priority for the RIPE NCC Executive Board. For this reasons we will stick to >> the documented and agreed process, this said let me share some more thoughts >> of us. >> >> We appointed Daniel as a non voting NomCom Chair as he knows the process:-), >> but also was not running himself. As he is non voting but just chairing and >> facilitating we did not perceive this as a conflict of interest. The NCC is >> running many services for the community so we did not see this any different. I believe this to have been a rather poor call from the RIPE NCC board, as a strictly personal, non-member opinion. This is ##NOT## because of it being Daniel, for whom I have the highest possible respect in this context, but because Daniel has been and continues to be a major ##RIPE NCC## figure. It is not a personal but a role issue. Available options such as the figure of “Prior chair”, fulfilled by Anna Wilson, are more clearly an advisory role. The role of chair, even if non-voting, has a very different profile in any group dynamic. The role of chair is not the role of secretary. However, things are as they are. >> We did not foresee that NCC staff would apply for the role but then again we >> have an independent NomCom in which we trust and the process is not >> forbidding this either. Indeed! Recently several people asked me and/or nominated me for the RIPE NCC board elections. I politely declined because I spend most of my time with a different RIR, not because the process didn’t allow me to run. As the saying goes “do not cross the beams”. >> >> Our second task is to review if the process was followed, not who was >> elected and why and we are still happy to fulfill this task. That poses an interesting point for a future review of the process document, as what I understand from this is that the current document makes the RIPE NCC board the reviewer of its own decision, as part of the process. I admit I failed to spot the loop during the discussions that resulted in RIPE 727. >> >> Regarding the renumeration, this topic came up and the board promised to >> financially support the chair/vice-chair construct if the candidates wishes >> so to ensure their independence. >> The approach you describe sounds good for maintaining independence. However, the issue around which I understand the discussion is focusing is that this was not clear at the time of candidate application time and it has great influence on the potential pool of candidates. It is a fundamental difference on the definition of the “job” and as such, a change like this should automatically trigger a reset of the process to the point when candidates are solicited. ##NOT## because of who is in the noncom and ##NOT## because of issues around whether the relevant RIPE Document is being followed but because the “job” has changed. Further, this is an initiative that I believe the Noncom itself ought to trigger. To conclude, I see the issues above as two completely separate issues, which happen to involve the same process. I also happen to believe that a good run is more important than keeping to a timeline, in particular since this is the first time we run the process, and that recent changes in the RIPE Chair/RIPE MD should not pre-empt a better instance of the run. I think I am fairly pragmatical person, so I would like to invoke the “pragmatism” section of RIPE 727 and request that this message be my input to "Any such deviations and the appropriate community involvement should be clearly documented each time." Regards, Joao Luis Silva Damas Just a RIPE community participant
