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/[email protected]/
[ripe-chair-discuss] transparency and process
- Previous message (by thread): [ripe-chair-discuss] Status of RIPE Chair discussion?
- Next message (by thread): [ripe-chair-discuss] transparency and process
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jim Reid
jim at rfc1035.com
Wed May 17 14:08:32 CEST 2017
> On 17 May 2017, at 12:29, Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet at heanet.ie> wrote: > > 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. It's possible to have fine things like transparency (and openness and accountability and... a pony) with minimal amounts of process. These are not mutually exclusive. Too many people either seem to have forgotten that or believe it can't be done. And the more effort that goes into developing process, the less there is that's going into more productive activities. I think that was the gist of what Nigel just said. BTW, decision-making and procedures at RIPE are already more sclerotic than at the ITU. That should be ringing alarm bells. Just sayin'...
- Previous message (by thread): [ripe-chair-discuss] Status of RIPE Chair discussion?
- Next message (by thread): [ripe-chair-discuss] transparency and process
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]