I have no comment on WG chair. But on the other matter... I am getting a sense DB-WG is thinking about RPSL, the DB and the problem. I say this, because Its always amused me there are two WG to discuss one problem depending on how you approach it. If you come at it routing-centric, its in the routing WG. if you come at it as a DB proponent, its in the DB-WG. If you come at it as how RPSL is used, its a routing problem. if you come at it as how RPSL is implemented, its a DB problem.
So.. maybe this is a time to say "hmm. is it time we had a joint sitting of parliament, both houses, to discuss the issue" and deal with it jointly, so both sides agree on what is, or is not, a problem? -G On 20 January 2015 at 15:11, Rob Evans <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > Subsequent to the meeting in London, we asked for any comments on the > minutes from the previous meeting, RIPE 68. There were none, so I’m going > to ask the NCC to mark them as final. > > < > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/routing-wg/2014-November/002809.htm > l> > > Joao also announced during the London meeting that he would be standing > down as chair of this working group. With that in mind, I’d like to ask > anybody interested in taking on the co-chair role to send a message to > Joao and myself via <[email protected]>. > > The job description for WG chairs is largely described in RIPE-542, but > this is slightly out-of-date: > <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-542> > > As you’re no doubt aware, we and all the other working groups have to have > a process for chair replacement. We issued a very simple suggested text > back in September: > > < > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/routing-wg/2014-September/002769.ht > ml> > > Whilst there were few comments on this, I’m aware that other working > groups have had significant discussion about the process, and bringing > this up again is going to lead to a slightly more involved process. > > I suggest that for this iteration we keep it simple and try to reach > consensus on a candidate, but to avoid too much duplicated effort, if > there is significant feeling within then WG that a more rigid process is > required, we try and reach agreement to borrow one (a process, not a > chairperson) from another WG rather than reinvent the wheel. > > I’ll step down at RIPE 71 or 72 to exercise this new process. > > That’s all for the administrivia, if anybody wants to go back to talking > about cross-RIR routing registry authentication, fire away! > > Cheers, > Rob > > > >
