Hi Erik!> On 25 Nov 2017, at 00:15, Erik Bais <[email protected]> wrote: > > As one might expect, being a RIPE chair, requires a huge amount of > spare/private and vacation time and an employer (if not self-employed) that > would see the value or benefit of employing the RIPE Chair.. and there is the > ‘stress’ especially if it is busy at the office (day-job) and seeing issues > that would demand your attention, with a community with its huge size … > > Currently it is my expectation that the RIPE chair position is consuming more > than 14 weeks of work in its current way how Hans-Petter is running the > position. And that is currently unpaid … > Obviously not everything is covered in this by his vacation days .. and it is > not that he is sitting idle on his hands at his day job. > > If the RIPE Chair position would be a full time position, it would allow the > RIPE chair to attend more regional NOG meetings, member lunches, other RIR > meetings or ICANN meetings or help with more Governance discussions with the > various Governments that require our communities perspective. Or talks about > GDPR or alike … > It would be good for the community if the RIPE Chair would and could > position/voice the community view, which may or may not be similar or be > voiced differently in meetings with governments or ICANN meetings, apart from > the view of the RIPE NCC itself. The role as RIPE chair is in many ways very similar to the AD / IESG membership positions in the IETF except they are virtually full time. I am not convinced about your idea for a number of reasons. First, I am not sure we need a separate body that work on GDPR etc as we have the NCC staff working on that. Duplicating this doesn’t seem like a good use of funds and resources. Secondly, if we employ a chair it would have to be more static as few people would leave an existing job for a five year contact and I worry that will limit the selection pool. Last, creating a legal entity that represents the RIPE community requires a lot more formalisation of how that legal entity registers members, policy etc. and I am not convinced we want that. I think it is great you raise this issue as we should explore it but for me the negatives currently outweighs the positives. Best Regards, - kurtis -
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
