On 25/11/2014 18:15, Peter Koch wrote: > On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 12:09:25PM +0000, Jim Reid wrote: > >> [2] A co-chair will serve a term of N years, where N is the number >> of co-chairs. Terms will be staggered so that one term expires every >> year. A co-chair cannot serve more than 2 consecutive terms. > > as was mentioned during the session, not all of the co-chairs agreed on > this text. Let me explain my dissent: iff (sic!) we accept the 'as > lightweight > as possible' axiom for the design, the term limit seems redundant to me > based on the assumption that common sense should prevail. Change and rotation > is already taken care of by the useful term length and explicit appointment > procedures. Rest assured this is not myself looking forward to a lifetime > sentence. > >> [5] The WG may decide by consensus to remove a WG co-chair at any time. > > Last time this became imminent in another WG, a lynch mob was orchestrated > kind of along these lines. The result was right, just that due process > suffered "a bit". Therefore I think this aspect is underspecified and > would benefit from replacement by what the WG chair task force had come up > with. > Of course, that's not specific to this particular WG. > > -Peter (no hat)
I'm fascinated by the ability of so many people in the RIPE community to be able to switch hats from one moment to the next, depending on the topic, and then argue about something as passionately as they claim to be dispassionate. Perhaps at the next meeting we could have a game of hat-switching bingo? Dutch bonnets for the winner, nieuwe haring for the runners-up. Otherwise, can you confirm that it is your completely unbiassed opinion, speaking as not-working-group-chair for a brief moment, that working group chairs should not be obliged to routinely stand down for re-selection because "don't be silly!" Nick
