[ripe-chair-discuss] Status of RIPE Chair discussion?
Job Snijders job at ntt.net
Wed May 17 17:49:25 CEST 2017
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 04:09:56PM +0200, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: > On 17.05.17 12:35 , Nigel Titley wrote: > > 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. > > I second this proposal. > > Let me propose a friendly amendment based on both the concerns about > continuity and the axiom that a sound minimal process has to have > three elements. [https://de.wiktionary.org/wiki/aller_guten_Dinge_sind_drei] > > 3. RIPE Chair Continuity: The RIPE Chair may appoint and dismiss a > vice chair. The job description is fine, however the second point suggested by Nigel is too coarse. While I appreciate the simplicity of deferring, I do not support this method. Such a method is entirely arbitrary, which either means: the position of RIPE Chair in itself is meaningless, or that we accept that decisions are made behind closed doors. Jim correctly pointed out that it is a strawman to suggest or even merely imply that any other method will be a bureaucratic nightmare driven by "amateur lawyers". If we as community can manage to put together an Executive Board, a team of Arbiters, and a Program Committee, surely we can manage to figure out how and who should appointed a RIPE chair. Kind regards, Job