Hi,

I echo James on Gert's accumulated experience. Separately, I think
it's worth noting that a team of three provides more resilience. In
the event that one person is unavailable or has to recuse themselves
from a discussion, there is always another person to work through
issues with.

Kind regards,

Leo

On Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 1:15 PM Kennedy, James via address-policy-wg
<address-policy-wg@ripe.net> wrote:
>
> Hi Jim,
>
> Honestly I had a similar reaction when I first heard the suggestion - considering how quiet the AP-WG has been of late, do we really have the need for three chairs now?
>
> As Gert wrote earlier, we have heard that some people want a systematic review of the AP documents performed to make them easier to follow and comprehend, and to improve consistency within and between the docs. Kurt highlighted some good examples on Tuesday. Such an activity would considerably increase the workload for the WG and the chair team.
>
> This, along with Gert leaving a sizable footprint (size 47) of knowledge and experience to fill, leaves me to believe that having three chairs for the upcoming period offers more benefit than harm.
>
> Regards,
> James
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of Jim Reid
> Sent: Friday 9 April 2021 18:12
> To: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>
> Cc: Piotr Strzyzewski <Piotr.Strzyzewski@polsl.pl>; RIPE address policy WG <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>
> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] a third WG co-chair
>
>
>
> > On 9 Apr 2021, at 17:06, Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> wrote:
> >
> > That is actually not true. I volunteered to become co-chair
> > immediately after the APWG session where Hans Petter resigned, and was
> > accepted as co-chair by the working group at the next RIPE meeting.
>
> I stand corrected Sander.
>
> No matter. My point remains. Why does the WG need a third co-chair?
>
>