[ripe-chair-discuss] Status of RIPE Chair discussion?
João Damas joao at bondis.org
Thu May 18 09:54:35 CEST 2017
Let’s see if I can spell the “simple proposal” in a different way. I believe what Daniel is saying is that this is the sort of role that is better defined by carrying it out day after day. If at some point the chair were to take a decision or action that alienated enough people then those people would raise the issue. A wise chair would spot potential conflict before it happened and engage in consultation before making the decision or having that decision/action carried out by other parties, thus covering both actions by RIPE as well as actions directed towards RIPE from elsewhere. That is sort of a self-regulating mechanism when the majority of parties are reasonable. It makes the role flexible enough to deal with emerging issues. I think this has been shown to work in several contexts and the one missing bit for this to fully work would be a mechanism to ensure openness, perhaps a spot at the plenary of the RIPE meetings were the focus is on reporting by the chair and the interaction between chair and community where that relationship is renewed. This and a list where any subscriber can post to between meetings. A mechanism not only to censor if necessary but also to show support (always necessary), all in the open. Joao > On 18 May 2017, at 08:15, Nurani Nimpuno <nurani at nimblebits.net> wrote: > > >> On 17 May 2017, at 12:35, Nigel Titley <nigel at titley.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 17/05/17 09:33, Shane Kerr wrote: >>> All, >>> >>> Another RIPE meeting has come and gone, but I don't remember any >>> discussion about the missing RIPE Chair stuff - either the job >>> description or appointment procedure. >>> >>> Honestly I'm not sure what to do. >> >> Well, we could all try minding our own business. It may well be that we >> don't need either a job description or appointment procedure. >> >>> While there does not seem to be a lot of enthusiasm for this work, it >>> seems like the kind of thing that should move forward before it is >>> needed. >> >> It may never be needed. The time spent would be wasted in that case. >> >>> >>> Perhaps we just need to wait for the accountability task force to >>> remind us that we don't have these things? Or do we need to declare the >>> RIPE Chair list a task force so that Daniel will insist that we have a >>> deadline? ;) >>> >> >> 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 > > I do not find this particularly helpful I’m afraid. This is neither a job description, nor a process. > > And while I also don’t want something over prescriptive, I do think that unless we do away with the concept of a RIPE chair, we need to define it in a way that people can understand it. > > > Nurani > >> >> 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 will now keep quiet and do something useful >> >> Nigel >> > >