Hi, I echo James on Gert's accumulated experience. Separately, I think it's worth noting that a team of three provides more resilience. In the event that one person is unavailable or has to recuse themselves from a discussion, there is always another person to work through issues with.
Kind regards, Leo On Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 1:15 PM Kennedy, James via address-policy-wg <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Jim, > > Honestly I had a similar reaction when I first heard the suggestion - > considering how quiet the AP-WG has been of late, do we really have the need > for three chairs now? > > As Gert wrote earlier, we have heard that some people want a systematic > review of the AP documents performed to make them easier to follow and > comprehend, and to improve consistency within and between the docs. Kurt > highlighted some good examples on Tuesday. Such an activity would > considerably increase the workload for the WG and the chair team. > > This, along with Gert leaving a sizable footprint (size 47) of knowledge and > experience to fill, leaves me to believe that having three chairs for the > upcoming period offers more benefit than harm. > > Regards, > James > > -----Original Message----- > From: address-policy-wg <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Jim > Reid > Sent: Friday 9 April 2021 18:12 > To: Sander Steffann <[email protected]> > Cc: Piotr Strzyzewski <[email protected]>; RIPE address policy WG > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] a third WG co-chair > > > > > On 9 Apr 2021, at 17:06, Sander Steffann <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > That is actually not true. I volunteered to become co-chair > > immediately after the APWG session where Hans Petter resigned, and was > > accepted as co-chair by the working group at the next RIPE meeting. > > I stand corrected Sander. > > No matter. My point remains. Why does the WG need a third co-chair? > >
