On 16/09/2014 10:28, Jim Reid wrote:
Daniel, this sounds like a nice idea in theory. However it's just not that easy in practice. A "one size fits all" approach simply doesn't work, partly for the reason you hinted at. The requirements for a Chair of this WG are different from those from say NCC Services. Or DNS. Or...
Jim, this is nonsense. The candidates will be different but there is no good reason not to have the same or a similar selection process.
The WG Chairs Collective has struggled with this issue for a long time and couldn't find a solution. An ad-hoc panel looked at this as well. They couldn't find one either.
This is plain wrong at a variety of levels. Firstly, you're voicing an implicit assumption that the WG chairs are responsible for deciding the baseline scope of this policy. In fact, this is a matter of general RIPE community policy and the opinion of the WG Chairs matters only insofar as they are also members of the RIPE community. The place to discuss this is not the WG lists, but ripe-list and at the plenary. If the RIPE community comes to some form of consensus that this should be devolved to the WGs, only then should this happen. Otherwise, this is subject to general RIPE community policy. Secondly, despite what you have claimed multiple times during this discussion, the ad-hoc panel came up with a reasonable and consistent set of proposals. The WG chairs - not the wider RIPE Community - then rejected this because a number of them felt that:
[...] Each WG is or should be in charge of how it runs its business.
In other words, a small number of the WG chairs decided to push this down to their own working groups, without reference to the wider RIPE community and without reference to the PDP. The RIPE Community has a policy development process for deciding matters of community policy. Once again, it is being ignored because of top-down decisions which were made in private without reference to the wider RIPE community. This is not ok. Nick