[ripe-chair-discuss] Status of RIPE Chair discussion?

On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 04:09:56PM +0200, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
> On 17.05.17 12:35 , Nigel Titley wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> I second this proposal.
> 
> Let me propose a friendly amendment based on both the concerns about
> continuity and the axiom that a sound minimal process has to have
> three elements. [https://de.wiktionary.org/wiki/aller_guten_Dinge_sind_drei]
> 
> 3. RIPE Chair Continuity: The RIPE Chair may appoint and dismiss a
> vice chair.

The job description is fine, however the second point suggested by Nigel
is too coarse. While I appreciate the simplicity of deferring, I do not
support this method. Such a method is entirely arbitrary, which either
means: the position of RIPE Chair in itself is meaningless, or that we
accept that decisions are made behind closed doors.

Jim correctly pointed out that it is a strawman to suggest or even
merely imply that any other method will be a bureaucratic nightmare
driven by "amateur lawyers".

If we as community can manage to put together an Executive Board, a team
of Arbiters, and a Program Committee, surely we can manage to figure out
how and who should appointed a RIPE chair.

Kind regards,

Job