[ripe-list] RIPE WG Chairs Selection and Terms

Hi,

On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 05:39:28PM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list wrote:
> Problem Statement:
> 
> RIPE PDP follows a consensus bottom-up approach. The consensus is judged by WG chairs, and in case of discrepancies, there is an appeal process via the WGCC.
> 
> However, each WG has a different way to choose the WG chairs, despite that this has a clear influence in the PDP and Appeal process and it doesn't make sense that different WG's contributing to the PDP have different behavior.

Since the appeals process has been invoked only *once* in the lifetime of
the PDP, with many proposals succeeding, and many others being withdrawn,
it seems that this is not the most crucial point of the PDP.

> Further to that, the PDP doesn't have a direct relation with selection of the WG chairs, which again, doesn't look as a rational approach and generates inconsistencies.

The PDP is a tool to organize ourselves *regarding policy making*, not the 
all-governing entity of the RIPE community.

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                      Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14        Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                 HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444         USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/ripe-list/attachments/20210212/99145484/attachment.sig>