[ripe-chair-discuss] Status of RIPE Chair discussion?
- Previous message (by thread): [ripe-chair-discuss] The laws of physics and the Bishop of Rome
- Next message (by thread): [ripe-chair-discuss] transparency and process
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Brian Nisbet
brian.nisbet at heanet.ie
Wed May 17 13:29:32 CEST 2017
On 17/05/2017 11:35, Nigel Titley wrote: > > > On 17/05/17 09:33, Shane Kerr wrote: >> All, >> >> Another RIPE meeting has come and gone, but I don't remember any >> discussion about the missing RIPE Chair stuff - either the job >> description or appointment procedure. >> >> Honestly I'm not sure what to do. > > Well, we could all try minding our own business. It may well be that we > don't need either a job description or appointment procedure. Isn't the process (however strict or loose that may be) for how our community chooses a chair our business? I certainly tend to think it is. >> While there does not seem to be a lot of enthusiasm for this work, it >> seems like the kind of thing that should move forward before it is >> needed. > > It may never be needed. The time spent would be wasted in that case. Sadly I am not convinced that Hans Petter is either immortal nor do I assume he'll always want to do the job he's doing right now. >> Perhaps we just need to wait for the accountability task force to >> remind us that we don't have these things? Or do we need to declare the >> RIPE Chair list a task force so that Daniel will insist that we have a >> deadline? ;) >> > > Could I make a suggestion: > > 1. RIPE Chair job description: Doing the sort of things that the RIPE > Chair should do. > > 2. RIPE Chair selection process: Selected as needed > > Both of these definitions seem to have worked fine in the past and have > the benefit of not involving legions of amateur lawyers who might be > better involved in doing something useful. We've done this once and that one time the community seemed to be asking for something a little more concrete than the (albeit excellent) decision Rob made. I don't think it's a sufficient data point! I will admit that I'm a little worried about terms like "amateur lawyers" being thrown around in relation to this and the Accountability Taskforce. It seems far more pointed than is necessary or justified. I know that I am more in favour of process than a lot of people in this discussion, but I'm also very much in favour of suitable levels of transparency and the benefits they bring. I also believe there's a middle ground here. I look forward to reading the RIPE Labs article and going from there. Brian Brian Nisbet Network Operations Manager HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland +35316609040 brian.nisbet at heanet.ie www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270
- Previous message (by thread): [ripe-chair-discuss] The laws of physics and the Bishop of Rome
- Next message (by thread): [ripe-chair-discuss] transparency and process
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]