On 11/01/2015 19:51, Jim Reid wrote:
> "every calendar year" is even simpler and fewer words than that Nick. :-)
depends what you're looking for. If it's the simplest and fewest words,
then you will probably want:
[2] A co-chair will serve a term of N years.
The main thing is that the wording s
On 11 Jan 2015, at 19:16, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> But it was fewer words and simpler to say "every second RIPE meeting".
"every calendar year" is even simpler and fewer words than that Nick. :-)
I doubt it will matter or if anyone really cares when the selection process
kicks in at some point d
On 11/01/2015 15:31, Jim Reid wrote:
> Though I'd prefer "once a year" to "every second RIPE meeting" in case
> the number of RIPE meetings per year changes or one of them gets
> cancelled say because the Kras catches fire. And while the selection
> process may well be aligned with a RIPE meeting,
On 7 Jan 2015, at 20:15, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> On 06/01/2015 12:41, Niall O'Reilly 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.
>
> This is also semantically non-deterministic in
On 06/01/2015 12:41, Niall O'Reilly 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.
This is also semantically non-deterministic in the case where the number of
co-chairs changes.
>From
On 07/01/2015 16:20, Robert Story wrote:
> I agree. It seems silly to limit the term of someone willing to serve and
> who has wg support.
This approach favours the creation of an incumbency, which most people
agree is not good governance.
> If, however, the consensus is in favor of term limits,
On Mon, 5 Jan 2015 22:20:07 +0100 Peter wrote:
PK> [...] To that extent, the limits are superfluous
PK> because common sense will prevail.
PK> Should they be deemed necessary, there are probably bigger fish to fry,
PK> e.g., the impeachment clause.
I agree. It seems silly to limit the term of so
At Tue, 06 Jan 2015 12:41:52 +,
Niall O'Reilly wrote:
>
> I suggest replacing these paragraphs [...]
I ought perhaps also to have mentioned that I was just wordsmithing.
I don't wish to take a position on either side of the discussion of
whether a term limit is appropriate.
Best rega
> On 6 Jan 2015, at 12:41, Niall O'Reilly wrote:
>
> At Mon, 5 Jan 2015 17:33:48 +,
> Jim Reid wrote:
>>
>> Happy new year everyone.
>
> +1!
>
> I suggest replacing these paragraphs
>
>> [2] A co-chair will serve a term of N years, where N is the number
>> of co-chairs. Terms will be s
> On 6 Jan 2015, at 12:41, Niall O'Reilly wrote:
>
> At Mon, 5 Jan 2015 17:33:48 +,
> Jim Reid wrote:
>>
>> Happy new year everyone.
>
> +1!
>
> I suggest replacing these paragraphs
>
>> [2] A co-chair will serve a term of N years, where N is the number
>> of co-chairs. Terms will be s
At Mon, 5 Jan 2015 17:33:48 +,
Jim Reid wrote:
>
> Happy new year everyone.
+1!
I suggest replacing these paragraphs
> [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 serv
On Mon, Jan 05, 2015 at 05:33:48PM +, Jim Reid wrote:
Dear All
> One sticking point appears to be the "A co-chair cannot serve more than 2
> consecutive terms." provision in [2]. Someone commented at the mike at RIPE69
> that this was a good thing. One of your co-chairs says the opposite. E
I strongly support the proposal that a WG Chair serves a term of N years
and also cannot serve more than 2 consecutive terms, I also agree with
Nick that adding something into the language to make it clear that a
previous chair can be re-elected following a set period would be a good
move.
Brett C
Jim, all,
On Mon, Jan 05, 2015 at 05:33:48PM +, Jim Reid wrote:
> One sticking point appears to be the "A co-chair cannot serve more than 2
> consecutive terms." provision in [2]. Someone commented at the mike at RIPE69
> that this was a good thing. One of your co-chairs says the opposite.
Jim,
On 05/01/2015 17:33, Jim Reid wrote:
> One sticking point appears to be the "A co-chair cannot serve more than
> 2 consecutive terms." provision in [2]. Someone commented at the mike
> at RIPE69 that this was a good thing. One of your co-chairs says the
> opposite. Everyone else has not com
Happy new year everyone.
The list has been silent about the draft selection procedure. This means it's
not possible to decide if there's a consensus or not so we can declare victory
and move on. Sigh. Could I ask you all to review the proposal and comment on
the list?
One sticking point appear
16 matches
Mail list logo
