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/ripe-chair-discuss@ripe.net/
[ripe-chair-discuss] Status of RIPE Chair discussion?
- Previous message (by thread): [ripe-chair-discuss] The laws of physics and the Bishop of Rome
- Next message (by thread): [ripe-chair-discuss] transparency and process
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Brian Nisbet
brian.nisbet at heanet.ie
Wed May 17 13:29:32 CEST 2017
On 17/05/2017 11:35, Nigel Titley wrote: > > > On 17/05/17 09:33, Shane Kerr wrote: >> All, >> >> Another RIPE meeting has come and gone, but I don't remember any >> discussion about the missing RIPE Chair stuff - either the job >> description or appointment procedure. >> >> Honestly I'm not sure what to do. > > Well, we could all try minding our own business. It may well be that we > don't need either a job description or appointment procedure. Isn't the process (however strict or loose that may be) for how our community chooses a chair our business? I certainly tend to think it is. >> While there does not seem to be a lot of enthusiasm for this work, it >> seems like the kind of thing that should move forward before it is >> needed. > > It may never be needed. The time spent would be wasted in that case. Sadly I am not convinced that Hans Petter is either immortal nor do I assume he'll always want to do the job he's doing right now. >> Perhaps we just need to wait for the accountability task force to >> remind us that we don't have these things? Or do we need to declare the >> RIPE Chair list a task force so that Daniel will insist that we have a >> deadline? ;) >> > > Could I make a suggestion: > > 1. RIPE Chair job description: Doing the sort of things that the RIPE > Chair should do. > > 2. RIPE Chair selection process: Selected as needed > > Both of these definitions seem to have worked fine in the past and have > the benefit of not involving legions of amateur lawyers who might be > better involved in doing something useful. We've done this once and that one time the community seemed to be asking for something a little more concrete than the (albeit excellent) decision Rob made. I don't think it's a sufficient data point! I will admit that I'm a little worried about terms like "amateur lawyers" being thrown around in relation to this and the Accountability Taskforce. It seems far more pointed than is necessary or justified. I know that I am more in favour of process than a lot of people in this discussion, but I'm also very much in favour of suitable levels of transparency and the benefits they bring. I also believe there's a middle ground here. I look forward to reading the RIPE Labs article and going from there. Brian Brian Nisbet Network Operations Manager HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland +35316609040 brian.nisbet at heanet.ie www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270
- Previous message (by thread): [ripe-chair-discuss] The laws of physics and the Bishop of Rome
- Next message (by thread): [ripe-chair-discuss] transparency and process
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]