[ripe-chair-discuss] transparency and process
Jim Reid jim at rfc1035.com
Wed May 17 15:48:01 CEST 2017
> On 17 May 2017, at 14:18, Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet at heanet.ie> wrote: > I'm ok with minimal amounts of process (albeit I'd probably like a > little more), but right now we have none. We did/do have a process, albeit an undocumented one. Rob was replaced by Hans Petter. QED. Rob selected his successor and that decision was sort of endorsed by the community. All of that took place about a year or so before Rob stepped down. [Rob may well have taken soundings before then: no matter.] It was quick, simple, transparent enough IMO and I think we’re all happy with the outcome even if some were uncomfortable how we got there. I’d be inclined to stick with that approach unless someone can come up with something better. For some definition of better which includes minimal process. > I also think, given the way we > go about things and the prominence of the position, that the long term > lack of a RIPE Chair would have more impact than people think. I’d agree with you if anyone was advocating the long term lack of a RIPE Chair. But nobody is proposing that. > I will admit I have never visited the ITU, but, given what you and > others have told me, Jim, I find that hard to believe. But anyway. I had the misfortune to be at SG20 in March. Documents got consensus at that meeting. They became ITU Recommendations (in other words international standards) just over four weeks later.