> On 28 May 2020, at 08:25, Andy Davidson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Right now, they can't because the RIPE Chair and the Chair of this Committee
> *work for the NCC*, and one reports to the other. Do you not see how this is
> a governance problem, however accidentally derived? Yes or no?
In the hypothetical abstract, yes. For the reality we're currently in, no.
The WG Chairs recognised this ugliness when they made the pragmatic decision to
choose Hans Petter as interim RIPE Chairman for a few weeks while he was also
the NCC CEO. They took the reasonable common sense view that this was the least
worst option for all concerned. It's a shame you do not seem to be able to
accept that perspective.
I frankly don't see how these reporting lines possibly matter for the current
circumstances. The NCC CEO is not going to tell Daniel how to run the Nomcom or
get it to reach a particular decision. And if they did try to do that, we can
be sure Daniel would give a suitably robust response.
So what are you *really* worrying about? What is the actual problem are you
trying to fix? If there's the slightest suspicion that the lines of reporting
will cause the Nomcom to deliver a tainted result, we can deal with that
problem if and when we get to it.
