[ripe-chair-discuss] transparency and process

On 17/05/2017 13:23, Nigel Titley wrote:
> 
> 
> On 17/05/17 13:08, Jim Reid wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
> 
> It was indeed what I was trying to say. Writing procedure for events that
> 
> 1) Occur very infrequently
> 2) Have fairly minimal impact when they do
> 
> Is, in my view, wasted time.

I'm ok with minimal amounts of process (albeit I'd probably like a
little more), but right now we have none. I also think, given the way we
go about things and the prominence of the position, that the long term
lack of a RIPE Chair would have more impact than people think. Would it
change the world in general? No, but I'm not sure I agree with "fairly
minimal."

Honestly, if the process is "The existing RIPE Chair shall choose a
successor without need for consultation or referral. In the case that
that isn't possible the WG Chairs will have a dance off" then I'd be
happier because it would be out in the open.

>> BTW, decision-making and procedures at RIPE are already more sclerotic than at the ITU. That should be ringing alarm bells. Just sayin'...
> 
> +1

I will admit I have never visited the ITU, but, given what you and
others have told me, Jim, I find that hard to believe. But anyway.

Brian