Hi, Benedikt, everyone On 04/07/2020, 12:57, Benedikt Stockebrand <b...@stepladder-it.com> wrote: > Andy Davidson <a...@nosignal.org> writes: >> HPH wrote: >>> I do want to acknowledge that concerns were raised quite late in the >>> process about the potential for capture or influence by the RIPE NCC. >> [...] >> Funny definition of 'potential'! > Andy, if I take this literally, you are claiming that the NCC *were* > capturing or influcencing the process. > If you actually mean that, then I really want to see you substantiate > that claim.
You removed a line where I cite several examples of influence from my original intentionally short message. Therefore, I must summarise that you preferred sound-bite practice and not to engage debate. However, perhaps the examples were not enough for you. Perhaps you consider things to be only a mishap of bootstrapping because it will all be different next time. Well, not so: RIPE-728 requires that the next nom-com committee Chair must be entirely agreeable to ONLY Daniel, because only the former Chair has the power to recall the successive Chair. Does the next nom-com Chair do something that the NCC founder does not like? Daniel has free power to alter the Chair. Perhaps you might think that this is an accident of how the 728 document is drafted. Of the four Authors, one is the former RIPE Chair and now NCC MD, one the new Chair and former/current NCC employee, and ... Daniel the former nom-com Chair who’s role in the selection of the community chair I have cited as poor governance. Do we have so few people in the community that we have to work with a tiny pool? The heart of my complaint is a passion for bottom-up governance and the primacy of community voice in the community. > Considering how this entire chair selection run developed I am still > surprised that insinuations like yours haven't driven people to stepping > down from the various roles involved. I am pleased the record shows that you made this statement rather than I. > Additionally, there is a fair risk that political organizations outside > the community may still leverage the way how this affair turned out as > an indication that the community can't be trusted with the management of > resources critical to the world at large Yes, this is why I precisely added my support to the request for this to get fixed and I am extremely sad that the 2020 nom-com chair disagreed. Andy
