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

On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 12:04 PM, Jim Reid <jim at rfc1035.com> wrote:
> On 21 Sep 2014, at 10:48, Roger Jørgensen <rogerj at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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 ?
>
> Sure, if you like car-herding.
>
> I think the priority MUST be to have clearly documented open and transparent procedures for appointing, removing and rotating WG chairs. That's just around the corner. It would be desperately embarrassing if this opportunity was discarded while the community has an angels on pinhead debate about how to decide the procedure for deciding the selection of WG chairs. That debate will run for a long time and almost certainly bring us back to where we are today. This seems silly. Let's fix the immediate accountability vacuum because that's the key issue. Or should be.
>
> IMO the focus should be on outcomes, not procedures. A discussion on how to decide the procedure for deciding a selection mechanism is the sort of pointless make-work that belongs in the hot air factories of ICANN and ITU. It will be a desparate shame if RIPE chooses to go down that path.


Guess I should have said something about that in my last email.

The current work with getting some procedures in place should not stop
waiting for some other unknown discussion. Neither my above question
or Nick's concern should influence that work ongoing in this working
group.

Right now I'm just waiting for an update proposal that address my
concern about people not being on site, and maybe some of the other
concern raised :)




-- 

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