Hans Petter, all, On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 12:08:05PM +0200, Hans Petter Holen wrote:
> https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/cc/ripe-working-group-chair-financial-support > > If there is consensus from the community on this I will do a formal request > to the RIPE NCC for such support. with the upcoming RIPE81 going virtual, I'd suggest there is no immediate need for action (even taking into account the NCC's 2021 budgeting process). While the offer looks generous and quite anybody could advertise sponsorship, I do think that the neutrality that was expressed as being expected from NCC staff in recent discussions would also extend to the NCC's Board. To that extent I think the Board maybe overreached a bit - nobody had asked for this well to be drilled. The proposal turns an exception into a rule and the way I read it gives the full control over a session in the hands of a single individual. For once, much of the laudable work of WG chairs happens outside the face to face sessions - but most of the WGs don't do WG work but have evolved into specialized program streams - and probably rightfully so and to the benefit of the participants. But then, why focus on WG chairs? What about the program committee and what about the contributors and presenters? We've also seen WGs where the peak of discussion is around "selection" and then little followup. The Accountability TF(*) has identified the WG chair selection process as having room for improvement and even recently the role of the "wg chair collective" has been found to be, say, "complex". So, I believe, things are very much in flux and the community do have some homework to do which I'd like to see addressed before agreeing on another incentive just because that looks like a "must eat". Let's make sure we put support in the right place and for the right reasons. Regards, Peter (*) for disclosure purposes: I was part of that TF
