[address-policy-wg] WG chair re-selection procedure
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] WG chair re-selection procedure
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] WG chair re-selection procedure
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jan Ingvoldstad
frettled at gmail.com
Tue Sep 16 12:50:41 CEST 2014
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: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20140916/17736ffd/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] WG chair re-selection procedure
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] WG chair re-selection procedure
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]