On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 04:09:56PM +0200, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
On 17.05.17 12:35 , Nigel Titley wrote:
Could I make a suggestion:
1. RIPE Chair job description: Doing the sort of things that the RIPE Chair should do.
2. RIPE Chair selection process: Selected as needed
Both of these definitions seem to have worked fine in the past and have the benefit of not involving legions of amateur lawyers who might be better involved in doing something useful.
I second this proposal.
Let me propose a friendly amendment based on both the concerns about continuity and the axiom that a sound minimal process has to have three elements. [https://de.wiktionary.org/wiki/aller_guten_Dinge_sind_drei]
3. RIPE Chair Continuity: The RIPE Chair may appoint and dismiss a vice chair.
The job description is fine, however the second point suggested by Nigel is too coarse. While I appreciate the simplicity of deferring, I do not support this method. Such a method is entirely arbitrary, which either means: the position of RIPE Chair in itself is meaningless, or that we accept that decisions are made behind closed doors. Jim correctly pointed out that it is a strawman to suggest or even merely imply that any other method will be a bureaucratic nightmare driven by "amateur lawyers". If we as community can manage to put together an Executive Board, a team of Arbiters, and a Program Committee, surely we can manage to figure out how and who should appointed a RIPE chair. Kind regards, Job