[ripe-chair-discuss] bureaucratic nightmares

> On 17 May 2017, at 16:49, Job Snijders <job at ntt.net> wrote:
> 
> 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".

I didn’t say that at all Job. At least I thought I didn’t say that. If anything, a discussion of other methods can all too easily become the start of a slippery slope which ends in a bureaucratic nightmare. We have to be careful to avoid that. Or waste our time shed-painting and rat-holing.

I am very firmly of the view that we are in danger of letting the “amateur lawyers” drive us into a bureaucratic nightmare where the process -- and rigidly following it no matter what -- is more important than the objective. Some might think we’ve already let that happen too many times. This enthusiasm for process seems to be mushrooming across all sorts of RIPE activities. And at other Internet institutions too. Ho hum.

It’s all very well to discuss new or improved ways of doing things. And to question the status quo. Great. But when the suggestions go in the direction of “more process”, it's unlikely to produce outcomes which are better. IMO “more process” rarely, if ever, improves matters. It’ll just make things much, much worse.

It will be a very sad day if Rob’s key legacy -- keep it simple and use common sense -- gets ignored or forgotten.