On 10/02/2021 13:13, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list wrote:
> Hi Nigel,
>
> I've the feeling that in part, the lack of volunteers is due to the fact that
> existing ones can continue in perpetuity.
Well, possibly, but most of the WGs I've had anything to do with are
quite assiduous in trying to recruit new chairs.
> Also the details that we have in some cases 3 WG chairs and that means 1 less
> chair available for another WG. Note that I think that, considering that in
> other RIRs, there is a "single" WG for what it really is more important (PDP)
> and they are able to cope with the workload, this could also be the same here.
That's certainly a viable model and it seems to work in, for example,
ARIN, but I suspect that may be partly because the majority of proposals
are concerned with address policy, so the "PDP" working group becomes a
de-facto Address Policy WG. I'm not saying that this is a bad thing but
I do think that the RIPE way of doing things encourages the development
of non Address policy policies. However this is just an opinion.
> If we compare the "actual" participants in policy discussions, among all the
> WGs, I think basically is the same set of 20 people. I think that tells a lot!
I does tell a lot, but what does it tell us?
> In other RIRs, all the policy proposals are managed in a single "main" PDP WG.
See above...
> I've policy proposals under discussion in several RIRs, that precisely ask
> for 2 years terms, maximum 2 consecutive terms and then a minimim of 1-year
> "rest".
I'm very much against term limits. I see no reason to remove someone
from office as long as they are performing the job properly.
Nigel
