On 17/07/18 15:57, Lars-Johan Liman wrote:
jim@rfc1035.com:
Yes. We did this a few years ago to get rid of a WG co-chair who'd lost the confidence of their WG.
Without questioning the effectiveness of this, and only to understand the process used at the time: who were the "we" in "we did that ...".
The Anti-abuse WG were faced with a co-chair who was patently unsuitable for the job and who was thrown out by the WG on a show of hands at the Rome RIPE meeting.
(... which is also one reason that trying to define democratic processes in the RIPE community is such a beast. It's hard to define democracy in a constituency, when the constituency itself isn't well defined. But: challenge accepted! ;-) )
All in all, especially with Jims assertion that there is "prior art", I'm willing to live with a "deal with it if it comes to that" solution, in order to avoid ratholing and to avoid having to create a Minotaurian labyrinth of legalese in the document.
Cheers, /Liman
PS. We could end the entire document with "act guided by intelligence and experience!", as fiction detective Nero Wolfe's handyman Archie Goodwin used to say. ;-) ;-) ;-)
And that is one of the most sensible suggestions I've heard in a long, long time. Nigel