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/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[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] WG chair re-selection procedure
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jim Reid
jim at rfc1035.com
Tue Sep 16 12:47:46 CEST 2014
On 16 Sep 2014, at 11:24, Richard Hartmann <richih.mailinglist at gmail.com> wrote: > Is "you bussed in a lot of people" a valid argument again consensus? No. It's a valid argument against having votes in an open forum with no membership criteria. When we use consensus, it is fairly clear how to handle things if/when impostors try to interfere in WG decision-making. When the interlopers have votes... To repeat what I said before, consensus has served us well so far. There's no reason to stop using that approach. If this later turns out to be a mistake, we can deal with that once it's clear what has gone wrong and what would be the best way to fix it. What's been proposed is "good enough" -- perhaps with a little tweaking to deal with the nits that have been found. IMO I hope this WG can avoid inventing a lot of (unnecessary) complexity and process. The case for going down that path has yet to be established.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] WG chair re-selection procedure
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] WG chair re-selection procedure
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]