[ripe-chair-discuss] Some observations and opinions.

On 17/07/18 15:57, Lars-Johan Liman wrote:
> jim at rfc1035.com:

>> 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 ...".

The Anti-abuse WG were faced with a co-chair who was patently unsuitable
for the job and who was thrown out by the WG on a show of hands at the
Rome RIPE meeting.

> (... 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. ;-) ;-) ;-)

And that is one of the most sensible suggestions I've heard in a long,
long time.

Nigel