This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[address-policy-wg] WG chair re-selection procedure
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] WG chair re-selection procedure
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-04 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jim Reid
jim at rfc1035.com
Mon Oct 13 21:11:12 CEST 2014
On 5 Oct 2014, at 21:14, Peter Koch <pk at DENIC.DE> wrote: > In any case, the WG chairs have a role in the PDP, so > for good governance, their taking (and leaving) "office" should be in > line with the PDP. IMO these are two very different things and they should not be conflated with each other. Please explain why these should be combined. For bonus points, please show how and why appointment of WG chairs have to be in line with the PDP. AFAICT there is no document or consensus decision which supports this position. You've made this claim a few times but as yet you've not presented a justification for that PoV. I also think it's unwise to attempt to retrospectively force everything at RIPE to be derived from the foundations of a somewhat flawed PDP. Further discussion of this topic does not belong in the AP list.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] WG chair re-selection procedure
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-04 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Relaxing IPv6 Requirement for Receiving Space from the Final /8)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]