[routing-wg] WG chairs and year-old minutes...

I have no comment on WG chair. But on the other matter...

I am getting a sense DB-WG is thinking about RPSL, the DB and the problem.
I say this, because Its always amused me there are two WG to discuss one
problem depending on how you approach it. If you come at it
routing-centric, its in the routing WG. if you come at it as a DB
proponent, its in the DB-WG. If you come at it as how RPSL is used, its a
routing problem. if you come at it as how RPSL is implemented, its a DB
problem.

So.. maybe this is a time to say "hmm. is it time we had a joint sitting of
parliament, both houses, to discuss the issue" and deal with it jointly, so
both sides agree on what is, or is not, a problem?

-G

On 20 January 2015 at 15:11, Rob Evans <rhe at nosc.ja.net> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Subsequent to the meeting in London, we asked for any comments on the
> minutes from the previous meeting, RIPE 68.  There were none, so I’m going
> to ask the NCC to mark them as final.
>
> <
> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/routing-wg/2014-November/002809.htm
> l>
>
> Joao also announced during the London meeting that he would be standing
> down as chair of this working group.  With that in mind, I’d like to ask
> anybody interested in taking on the co-chair role to send a message to
> Joao and myself via <routing-wg-chairs at ripe.net>.
>
> The job description for WG chairs is largely described in RIPE-542, but
> this is slightly out-of-date:
> <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-542>
>
> As you’re no doubt aware, we and all the other working groups have to have
> a process for chair replacement.  We issued a very simple suggested text
> back in September:
>
> <
> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/routing-wg/2014-September/002769.ht
> ml>
>
> Whilst there were few comments on this, I’m aware that other working
> groups have had significant discussion about the process, and bringing
> this up again is going to lead to a slightly more involved process.
>
> I suggest that for this iteration we keep it simple and try to reach
> consensus on a candidate, but to avoid too much duplicated effort, if
> there is significant feeling within then WG that a more rigid process is
> required, we try and reach agreement to borrow one (a process, not a
> chairperson) from another WG rather than reinvent the wheel.
>
> I’ll step down at RIPE 71 or 72 to exercise this new process.
>
> That’s all for the administrivia, if anybody wants to go back to talking
> about cross-RIR routing registry authentication, fire away!
>
> Cheers,
> Rob
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/routing-wg/attachments/20150120/996d5e69/attachment.html>