[ripe-chair-discuss] transparency and process

On 17/05/17 13:08, Jim Reid wrote:
> 
>> On 17 May 2017, at 12:29, Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet at heanet.ie> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
> 
> It's possible to have fine things like transparency (and openness and accountability and... a pony) with minimal amounts of process. These are not mutually exclusive. Too many people either seem to have forgotten that or believe it can't be done. And the more effort that goes into developing process, the less there is that's going into more productive activities. I think that was the gist of what Nigel just said.

It was indeed what I was trying to say. Writing procedure for events that

1) Occur very infrequently
2) Have fairly minimal impact when they do

Is, in my view, wasted time.

If, in the worst case, Hans Petter should step under a bus, or fall a
victim to Viola-player's necrotic syndrome then the world will not end,
neither will the RIPE Community. We will have time to make a fairly
leisurely selection of a replacement by whatever means seem appropriate
at the time.

> BTW, decision-making and procedures at RIPE are already more sclerotic than at the ITU. That should be ringing alarm bells. Just sayin'...

+1