On 13 Apr 2022, at 19:58, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
I think that we've done a small bit of (4). I don't think that we've done (2) at all.
We have. Marco has given the WG a couple of updates on what’s been going on at ITU SG20 and the NCC’s activities there. ISTR we’ve had a few reports from the IETF’s IoT-related WGs and some hackathons. Another aspect of point 2 -- community input on the NCC’s IoT activities -- is dependent on what sort of IoT questions the NCC gets from other organisations and fora: governmet roundtables and the like.
I bring this up because I won't really know who a good co-chair is until I have a better idea what we are doing. Or to put it another way, maybe candidates could also say what they would do this way.
Well now’s your chance Michael. :-) What would you do as co-chair?
I also wonder about whether physical attendance at RIPE meetings is a MUST, or just a WOULD BE NICE, and whether participants from outside the RIPE region are appropriate.
IMO, it would be difficult but not impossible to have a remote co-chair. There’s usually one co-chair running the meeting while the other does the behind-the-scenes gophering. I think it's advisable for the co-chairs to be physically present for most RIPE meetings so they can participate in hallway chats and discussions over beer/coffee. Which is the real point of RIPE meetings. Participants from outside the RIPE region are just as welcome as anybody else IMO. RIPE has had co-chairs who were based outside RIPE’s service region or had out-of-region nationality. Maybe it still does. I would hope the WG picks its co-chairs based on merit rather than who issued their passport. These are of course just the opinions of an Old Fart who doesn’t and won’t chair anything. It’s up to the WG to decide these things for itself.