<html><body><span style="display:block;" class="xfm_70111475"><div><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:12pt;font-family:Times New Roman;" class="xfmc1">Hi Jim,</span><br/></div>
<div><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:12pt;font-family:Times New Roman;" class="xfmc1"><br data-mce-bogus="1"/></span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;" class="xfmc1"><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:12pt;">I also don't feel that consensus is the best available option for selecting people for positions. What could be used is anonymous voting </span><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:12pt;">ballots. I don't know what exactly software or platforms are used for that, but this is how we vote during elections at ICANN constituencies for example. And then the person is elected by the majority of votes. I believe it's better than consensus. With all the rest points I'm fine.</span></span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:12pt;font-family:Times New Roman;" class="xfmc1"><br data-mce-bogus="1"/></span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:12pt;font-family:Times New Roman;" class="xfmc1">Best,<br data-mce-bogus="1"/></span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:12pt;font-family:Times New Roman;" class="xfmc1">Olga<br data-mce-bogus="1"/></span></div>
<div><br/></div>
<div><br/></div>
<div><br/></div>
<div><i><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:12pt;"><span style="font-family:Arial;">9 октября 2018, 18:45:12, от "Nigel Titley" <</span><a href="mailto:nigel@titley.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:Arial;">nigel@titley.com</span></a><span style="font-family:Arial;">>:</span></span></i></div>
<div><br/></div>
<blockquote style="border-left:1px solid #cccccc;margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;">
<pre style="margin:5px 0;">On 09/10/<span data-ukrnet-code="1816">18 16</span>:29, Peter Koch wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 09, <span data-ukrnet-code="2018">2018</span> at 03:27:52PM +0100, Jim Reid wrote:
>
>> (1) The IoT WG will have 2 co-chairs who serve staggered 2-year terms.
>> (2) A co-chair cannot serve more than 3 consecutive terms.
>> (3) Each year, the longest serving co-chair will stand down and subject to (2) may make themselves available for re-appointment.
>> (4) The incoming co-chair will be chosen by the WG using consensus and the remaining co-chair will make the consensus determination.
>> (5) Any circumstances not covered by the above will be resolved by the RIPE Chair whose decision will be final.
>
> I do not especially like it, because other WGs have demonstrated that a consensus process
> for personnel decisions easily degenerates. However, I can live with that.
>
> For item (3) I think what is meant is that the alternate terms are maintained,
> not that the "longest serving co-chair" will have to repeatedly ask for reappointment.
> "The co-chair whose term is up" would sound better to my ears, at least.
I hate to say this but Peter does have a point. We all understand what
you mean but one of these days a nit-picking bike shedder will come
along and we'll have to fix it. Peter's suggestion is sound, I think.
You can tell it's a quiet day.
Nigel
_______________________________________________
iot-wg mailing list
<a href="mailto:iot-wg@ripe.net" target="_self" rel="noreferrer noopener">iot-wg@ripe.net</a>
<a href="https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/iot-wg" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/iot-wg</a>
</pre>
</blockquote></span></body></html>