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/ripe-chair-discuss@ripe.net/
[ripe-chair-discuss] bureaucratic nightmares
- Previous message (by thread): [ripe-chair-discuss] bureaucratic nightmares
- Next message (by thread): [ripe-chair-discuss] Status of RIPE Chair discussion?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Job Snijders
job at ntt.net
Wed May 17 20:16:55 CEST 2017
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 06:05:45PM +0100, Jim Reid wrote: > > On 17 May 2017, at 16:49, Job Snijders <job at ntt.net> wrote: > > 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". > > I didn’t say that at all Job. At least I thought I didn’t say that. If > anything, a discussion of other methods can all too easily become the > start of a slippery slope which ends in a bureaucratic nightmare. We > have to be careful to avoid that. Or waste our time shed-painting and > rat-holing. OK. I took your phrasing: "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." as a polite version of pointing out a fallacy. :-) Kind regards, Job
- Previous message (by thread): [ripe-chair-discuss] bureaucratic nightmares
- Next message (by thread): [ripe-chair-discuss] Status of RIPE Chair discussion?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]