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/iot-wg@ripe.net/
[iot-wg] WG co-chair appointment
- Previous message (by thread): [iot-wg] WG co-chair appointment
- Next message (by thread): [iot-wg] WG co-chair appointment
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jim Reid
jim at rfc1035.com
Mon May 11 14:30:29 CEST 2020
> On 11 May 2020, at 12:50, Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13 at gmail.com> wrote: > > A question for the current co-chairs: do we need only one new co-chair? Can we not have two? <WG co-chair hat off> Gordon, the current process says the WG has two co-chairs who serve staggered two-year terms. If the WG wants more co-chairs, someone needs to start a discussion about that and take account of what their proposed changes mean for the term limit provision to ensure a healthy turnover of co-chairs. [I suppose a maximum of 2 3-year terms would be just as good as 3 2-year terms. YMMV.] Once that’s sorted we then need to get the WG to reach consensus on the new process. I think that discussion would need to take place after the appointment procedure that’s already in progress has run its course. We can’t realistically change engines in mid-flight. More so when the plane’s on its final approach for landing. :-) Personally speaking, I think two co-chairs for the WG is enough. The workload isn’t high enough (yet) to justify more. Though this has of course to be a decision for the WG to make. FWIW, few other WGs have >2 co-chairs.
- Previous message (by thread): [iot-wg] WG co-chair appointment
- Next message (by thread): [iot-wg] WG co-chair appointment
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ iot-wg Archives ]