[ripe-chair-discuss] Some observations and opinions.
Nigel Titley nigel at titley.com
Tue Jul 17 17:01:15 CEST 2018
On 17/07/18 15:57, Lars-Johan Liman wrote: > jim at rfc1035.com: >> Yes. We did this a few years ago to get rid of a WG co-chair who'd >> lost the confidence of their WG. > > Without questioning the effectiveness of this, and only to understand > the process used at the time: who were the "we" in "we did that ...". The Anti-abuse WG were faced with a co-chair who was patently unsuitable for the job and who was thrown out by the WG on a show of hands at the Rome RIPE meeting. > (... which is also one reason that trying to define democratic processes > in the RIPE community is such a beast. It's hard to define democracy in > a constituency, when the constituency itself isn't well defined. But: > challenge accepted! ;-) ) > > All in all, especially with Jims assertion that there is "prior art", > I'm willing to live with a "deal with it if it comes to that" solution, > in order to avoid ratholing and to avoid having to create a Minotaurian > labyrinth of legalese in the document. > > Cheers, > /Liman > > PS. We could end the entire document with "act guided by intelligence > and experience!", as fiction detective Nero Wolfe's handyman Archie > Goodwin used to say. ;-) ;-) ;-) And that is one of the most sensible suggestions I've heard in a long, long time. Nigel