Hi, Jim On 26/05/2020, 00:30, Jim Reid <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 25 May 2020, at 23:42, Nick Hilliard <[email protected]> wrote: > > The concerns that were raised on the ripe-chair-discuss mailing list > > haven't been addressed. > > Rather than prompting for a mandate to "just get on with it", these issues > > need to be addressed. > With all due respect Nick, no they don’t. The concerns you and others have > raised have > been heard. They don’t have to be addressed.
Jim, you then go on to quote directly from RFC7282 which says very clearly that the concerns DO need to be addressed. > To quote from RFC7282: > 3. Rough consensus is achieved when all issues are addressed, but not > necessarily accommodated Nick has made some very valid points on the ripe-chair-discuss mailing list, in message https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ripe-chair-discuss/2020-May/000271.html. After just three days of discussion, Daniel shut down the conversation in message https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ripe-chair-discuss/2020-May/000347.html saying the Nomcom needed to 'take a break for a few days'. Without responding to any of the concerns - or 'addressing' them to use your choice of word, or even reference to them, Daniel then opens a new thread on an entirely different mailing list asking for wide community support to proceed unchanged. This is not consensus building. This is not suitable methodology from the Chair. This is disingenuous. I would ask those wishing to contribute to this thread to read the ripe-chair-discuss thread to familiarise themselves with the complaint. The pool of talent in the RIPE community is sufficiently large enough to mean that the independence of the NCC and Community can be preserved through having different people contribute to the work of our committees, working-groups, and leadership teams; to say or to behave that this is not the case demonstrates contempt. Andy
