[ripe-chair-discuss] bureaucratic nightmares

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