On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 11:24 AM, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi,
On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 10:27:46AM +0200, Roger Jørgensen wrote:
However, a question : did this ad-hoc panel have community backing, or was it some sort of internal WG-chairs working group? I can't remember to see it anywhere on any list but I would have overlooked it.
If I recall it right, the panel was set up by the WG chairs collective to come up with a workable procedure because the collective in total couldn't agree on anything.
There was no mandate from the community (but members of the community took part in the panel, not only WG chairs), plus, the expected outcome of the panel was a new *proposed* text, not a final decision that the WG chairs had to take as is.
So, yeah, it's kind of stupid to give the task to a group dedicated to come up with something well-considered, and then decide to ignore the result - apologies for the time wasted on that. But it's by no means "ignoring the mandate of the wider RIPE community".
From what I've seen so far it seems like all are doing more or less
So that ad-hoc group didn't have clear community "backing" or mandate, just from the WG chairs collective. Then the WG chairs collective are free to ignore it or accept whatever they came up with. Seems like a clear cut case there really. ... that you (wg chair collective) asked someone to do a work for you (wg chair collective) and then ignore it, probably not a wise move? That still leave the issue if it's a good idea for each WG to have their own procedures of selecting chairs, or if there should be one common for all. Guess that's for the entire community and not this working group to discuss ? the same thing, a slight change of wording here and there but no major difference. -- Roger Jorgensen | ROJO9-RIPE rogerj@gmail.com | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | roger@jorgensen.no