Replying to myself, eh?
Meredith, a month has passed since I posted the message below to the list. You haven’t replied. There hasn’t even been an acknowledgement or an “I’m busy and will get back to you/the WG in a few days”. Could you please answer the questions I posted? As far as question [2] goes, the WG now needs a revised schedule for co-chair appointment(s). Nothing has happened. We’ve gone beyond the end points that were in the appointment proposals made by yourself and Collin. Since neither of them has been followed, the WG needs to know and agree a time-line for choosing another co-chair (or two). It would be nice to get an update from you on what the next steps are and when they can be expected to happen. Thanks > On 12 Jun 2016, at 17:45, Jim Reid <[email protected]> wrote: > > Meredith, I think there’s confusion and uncertainty about the (provisional) > schedule for selecting the WG co-chair(s). Well, at least I’m confused and > uncertain about what’s meant to be happening. :-) > > Could you please clarify matters? > > I have three questions: > > [1] Is the WG to appoint one or two co-chairs alongside yourself? > > [2] When is a consensus judgement to be made about who gets appointed? You > said in Copenhagen and on the list that this would be done within a week or > so: ie by now. Collin proposed a revised schedule. But it doesn’t appear to > have had much support from the WG. So it’s not clear (at least not to me) if > we’re following that time-line or the earlier one you suggested during the > last RIPE meeting. > > [3] Is the WG expected to reach consensus on Co-chair criteria/requirements > before or after the appointment of additional co-chair(s)? If it’s the > former, what’s the time-line for the WG to agree those criteria? > > It might be helpful to open up discrete threads on the list for each answer > and have a clear proposal for each that the WG comment on. For instance, “I > think the WG should appoint N co-chairs. WG, please say on the list by $date > whether you agree with that or not. Silence implies consent.”. > > > >
