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] RIPE Chair Selection Process
- Previous message (by thread): [ripe-chair-discuss] RIPE Chair Selection Process
- Next message (by thread): [ripe-chair-discuss] RIPE Chair Selection Process
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jim Reid
jim at rfc1035.com
Tue Oct 9 10:24:05 CEST 2018
> On 9 Oct 2018, at 08:57, Roger Jørgensen <rogerj at gmail.com> wrote: > > Would it work if we let PC appoint NomCom? There are probably problems > with this that I don't see. No. The same perceived problems arise with whatever group appoints the Nomcom. Giving responsibility for the Nomcom to the PC would be even worse because the PC has no role in RIPE policy making. It should stay that way. Adding that role would mean rechartering the PC. Most PC members are appointed by votes. When there’s no control over who gets to vote or how often. RIPE makes important decisions by consensus, not votes. Other members of the PC are not appointed by the community, for instance the stuckee from the local host.
- Previous message (by thread): [ripe-chair-discuss] RIPE Chair Selection Process
- Next message (by thread): [ripe-chair-discuss] RIPE Chair Selection Process
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]