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] Some observations and opinions.
- Previous message (by thread): [ripe-chair-discuss] Some observations and opinions.
- Next message (by thread): [ripe-chair-discuss] Some observations and opinions.
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Lars-Johan Liman
liman at netnod.se
Tue Jul 17 16:57:45 CEST 2018
jim at rfc1035.com: >>> It's a reasonable concern. Though it should be simple to resolve if >>> that situation arises: "We don't want you any more. Go now." On 16 Jul 2018, at 22:19, Carlos Friaças <cfriacas at fccn.pt> wrote: >> Have you seen that approach working anywhere...? (<chuckle!> :-) Relevant question. ;-) ) > Yes. We did this a few years ago to get rid of a WG co-chair who'd > lost the confidence of their WG. Without questioning the effectiveness of this, and only to understand the process used at the time: who were the "we" in "we did that ...". >> Maybe: >> "Upon receiving a request to step down from <N> community members, >> the NomCom and(/or?) the WGCC decide if the Chair has to step down >> or not." > Nope. I think the community has to take that decision by consensus. > Nobody else. If the community is screaming for someone's head on a > stick, asking the NomCom or WGCC to make a judgement about that > would/should be a no-op. So there's nothing gained by introducing that > redundant step or steps. WFM. >> What is a "community member"? >> I would probably define this as someone who has attended a RIPE >> meeting in the last <N> years, or with relevant participation in >> mailing lists, acknowledged by WG Chairs. > That question is the start of an infinite rat-hole Carlos. Best stay > out of it. Rathole: agreed. (... which is also one reason that trying to define democratic processes in the RIPE community is such a beast. It's hard to define democracy in a constituency, when the constituency itself isn't well defined. But: challenge accepted! ;-) ) All in all, especially with Jims assertion that there is "prior art", I'm willing to live with a "deal with it if it comes to that" solution, in order to avoid ratholing and to avoid having to create a Minotaurian labyrinth of legalese in the document. Cheers, /Liman PS. We could end the entire document with "act guided by intelligence and experience!", as fiction detective Nero Wolfe's handyman Archie Goodwin used to say. ;-) ;-) ;-)
- Previous message (by thread): [ripe-chair-discuss] Some observations and opinions.
- Next message (by thread): [ripe-chair-discuss] Some observations and opinions.
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]