[cooperation-wg] The Working Group

>
> I see this area as important. Well I would! And I am not giving up right
> now. But what to others think?


In Copenhagen and Bucharest, I raised this issue with a few people
privately – "what is the role of Coop to you, and is there an unaddressed
space that it needs to extend into?" I had assumed from the outset that the
lull of the mailing list would be problematic, but instead most people
seemed to see the group as a space in involve other communities and create
room for discussions that would not otherwise fall under existing WGs. It
seems that people overall were satisfied with the WG's primary activity
taking place at the RIPE meetings, and the sessions spill into the break
time because there is such a vibrant discussion.

So, I would frame it less as a existential question about the need for the
group and pose the question as: are there unaddressed needs that future
co-chairs should encourage more active participation in?

As for my own silence on the role of the co-chair, that's a product of the
process. As Jim had rightly noted last week, there was some semblance of a
timeframe that I had proposed but had not been followed. Had it been,
rather than opening space for discussion, by June 1, and in fact in the
midst of the Copenhagen meeting, there had been already a determination
made by a fair amount of people about preferences. As such, that was
effective as disincentivizing any further discussion from those who had
offered their names, and hence quiet.

On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 5:19 AM, Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Jim asked some questions about a week ago and while we are waiting for a
> reply I feel I should ask one more.
>
> Do people actually want this Working Group?
>
> I see we get good attendance at the sessions during RIPE meetings. But
> traditionally WGs have also been very much about the mailing lists. A WG
> cannot just be about private conversations.
>
> The amount and style of contributions to this list, the lack of
> conversations about content, makes me feel that while people may be
> interested they are not actually interested enough to say anything. OK I
> have been on lists long enough to know that there are always many
> “lurkers”. Well we all know that. But there has to be some activity to make
> even that worthwhile. But I also note that while we had four candidates for
> co-chair they too seem remarkably silent. That is an indication of how they
> see the role of co-chair? I think it can be important for WGs to know what
> chairs and co-chairs think.
>
> I see this area as important. Well I would! And I am not giving up right
> now. But what to others think?
>
> Gordon
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/cooperation-wg/attachments/20160620/bd12e55e/attachment.html>