Thanks for the excellent work. My comments to a couple points below. On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 at 17:56, Antony Gollan <agollan@ripe.net> wrote:
2. Should we make changes based on Jim Reid's feedback? a) We are having trouble understanding how we could describe what each structure is accountable for beyond the various roles we have identified in the tables. We could make more high level comments - but to some extent this is already done in the introductions for each of the tables.
b) We are not sure how to take his comment that recommending that the community consider a single WG Chair selection process is out of scope for the TF
I support a single WG Chair selection process. I have been suggesting this to the wg-chairs for a while now. I would put this on the table as soon as the RIPE Chair process is done. 3. The new RIPE Chair document seems problematic for the document in a
couple of ways: a) We currently have a recommendation that the RIPE Chair should report back to the community on his activities - but the new document says "The RIPE chair reports their actions to the community as appropriate." Does this mean we should remove this recommendation?
The RIPE Chair document documents what we belive is the current practice of the RIPE Chair. You are welcome to propose improvements, (and I have intended to publish a report to the community regularly) -- Sincerely, Hans Petter Holen - hph@oslo.net - +47 45066054