On 14/10/17 12:37, Carsten Schiefner wrote:
William,
On 13.10.2017 21:56, William Sylvester wrote:
[...]
2. Conduct of a co-chair for a working group. This is a much more challenging issue, should a chair be held accountable for the actions of an employer?
are we really talking about an action by some random colleagues of David he'd barely know as they would work in another department across the street and therefore he'd almost never have anything to do with them?
I can speak to this from personal experience.
When I worked for BT, a misguided salesdroid mined the RIPE DB and used it to send spam to possible customers. When I found out I arranged for the salesdroid to be suitably formally warned, extracted an apology from them and passed the apologies of the company to the RIPE NCC and the community. At the time I was a co-chair of the DB WG.
I would expect any member of the community (not just a WG chair) to do likewise.
Nigel
I would very much like to see, at the very least, something similar to the above, very clearly and formally. There are, it should be pointed out, processes for removal of WG Chairs, however the DB WG has not decided to have one. There are examples out there that the WG could adopt if it wishes. The problems that occurred in Rome were one of the reasons the community felt that a process was a good idea, but remember, lack of documented process didn't stop things happening on that occasion. The WG has the power to effect change if needed. This is *still* not a great state of affairs and while I don't want to take away from the points that must be discussed in Dubai, I would, at this point, expect it to be on the agenda at the meeting. Thanks, Brian