> On 15 Oct 2020, at 22:47, Dave Knight <d...@shl.io> wrote:
>
> The new process has been exercised several times since then with these results
>
> Nov 2015, RIPE 71 Peter Koch was succeeded by Dave Knight for a 3 year term
> Oct 2016, RIPE 73 Jim Reid was succeeded by Shane Kerr for a 3 year term
> Oct 2017, RIPE 75 Jaap Akkerhuis was succeeded by Joao Damas for a 3 year
> term
When the selection process was introduced, Jaap, Peter and myself said we would
all be standing down to make way for new people. That procedure was the
catalyst for regime change that probably should have happened earlier than it
did. This was carried out over 2 years to allow for a phased handover.
The current arrangement with term limits is intended to help with that too.
That way, there’s an orderly transition and the newcomer gets time to settle in
and learn from their more experienced co-chairs.
> If the working group feels strongly about encouraging new faces perhaps we
> should amend the process such that new co-chairs may servce onlky a single
> term?
I’m not sure. Serving a single three year term seems too short IMO. A bit more
stability would be desirable. Besides, is it the selection procedure that's
discouraging new faces or could it be the incumbents are doing such a good job,
nobody feels the need to disrupt that? Let’s first identify the problem before
deciding what the solution is.
Maybe the co-chairs need to do a little succession planning: finding suitable
candidates to mentor and then encouraging them to volunteer when the term
limits kick in.
