[address-policy-wg] WG chair re-selection procedure

On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 11:24 AM, Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 10:27:46AM +0200, Roger Jørgensen wrote:
>> However, a question : did this ad-hoc panel have community backing, or
>> was it some sort of internal WG-chairs working group? I can't remember
>> to see it anywhere on any list but I would have overlooked it.
>
> If I recall it right, the panel was set up by the WG chairs collective
> to come up with a workable procedure because the collective in total
> couldn't agree on anything.
>
> There was no mandate from the community (but members of the community
> took part in the panel, not only WG chairs), plus, the expected outcome
> of the panel was a new *proposed* text, not a final decision that the
> WG chairs had to take as is.
>
> So, yeah, it's kind of stupid to give the task to a group dedicated to
> come up with something well-considered, and then decide to ignore the
> result - apologies for the time wasted on that.  But it's by no means
> "ignoring the mandate of the wider RIPE community".

So that ad-hoc group didn't have clear community "backing" or mandate, just
from the WG chairs collective. Then the WG chairs collective are free to ignore
it or accept whatever they came up with. Seems like a clear cut case
there really.

... that you (wg chair collective) asked someone to do a work for you
(wg chair collective) and then ignore it, probably not a wise move?



That still leave the issue if it's a good idea for each WG to have
their own procedures of selecting chairs, or if there should be one
common for all. Guess that's for the entire community and not this
working group to discuss ?

>From what I've seen so far it seems like all are doing more or less
the same thing, a slight change of wording here and there but no major
difference.



-- 

Roger Jorgensen           | ROJO9-RIPE
rogerj at gmail.com          | - IPv6 is The Key!
http://www.jorgensen.no   | roger at jorgensen.no