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/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[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 ]
Gert Doering
gert at space.net
Sat Sep 20 13:31:14 CEST 2014
Hi,
On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 12:14:41PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> Firstly, you're voicing an implicit assumption that the WG chairs are
> responsible for deciding the baseline scope of this policy. In fact, this
> is a matter of general RIPE community policy and the opinion of the WG
> Chairs matters only insofar as they are also members of the RIPE community.
>
> The place to discuss this is not the WG lists, but ripe-list and at the
> plenary. If the RIPE community comes to some form of consensus that this
> should be devolved to the WGs, only then should this happen. Otherwise,
> this is subject to general RIPE community policy.
Actually, I strongly disagree with you here - how a working group runs
its show, whether it wants 1 or 5 WG chairs, and whether it wants voting
or not is a local matter for this WG's members. Not all WGs are equal,
and having "the RIPE community" decide about matters that are a local
decision of each WG is effectly exactly what you despise: a top-down
decision, someone else deciding for the members of that particular WG.
Experience shows that the different WGs really are quite different
regarding WG chair (s)election, number of available candidates, and of
course, effective job description for the WG chairs in question - APWG
is very different from DNS, which is very different from EIX, etc. But
I'm sure you know that :-)
If you're annoyed that "the small and secret" WG chairs collective has
decided to give every WG the freedom to decide for themselves how they
want to handle this, you could just ignore the discussions that were
done before that - we always had the freedom to handle WG chair decisions
the way each individual WG wanted to do it, so deciding to *not* go for
a central procedure for all is actually a *non*-change. The new thing is
"hey, WG chairs, please come to a formal description how your WG will
do this in the future, and write it down" - and you can't claim that this
is a bad thing.
Gert Doering
-- APWG chair
--
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
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: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 811 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20140920/499fc4aa/attachment.sig>
- 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 ]