Thanks for the excellent work.
My comments to a couple points below.
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)