[address-policy-wg] WG chair re-selection procedure

On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 12:47 PM, Jim Reid <jim at rfc1035.com> wrote:

>
> To repeat what I said before, consensus has served us well so far. There's
> no reason to stop using that approach. If this later turns out to be a
> mistake, we can deal with that once it's clear what has gone wrong and what
> would be the best way to fix it. What's been proposed is "good enough" --
> perhaps with a little tweaking to deal with the nits that have been found.
> IMO I hope this WG can avoid inventing a lot of (unnecessary) complexity
> and process. The case for going down that path has yet to be established


I agree completely.

I think it's an important enough step forward that we're having this
change, and as I understand it anyway, it's entirely up to us as the WG to
decide if we want to change this yet again, even if we want a pony.

(Nevermind that deciding that we want a pony won't necessarily _get_ us a
pony.)
-- 
Jan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20140916/17736ffd/attachment.html>