Hi Jordi, On 10.02.21 14:13, 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.
I do not see any facts supporting your claim. > 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. This make no sense. If I would like to volunteer as a Adress Policy WG chair, it does not mean I would like to volunteer as IOT WG chair. > May be a model where we have a single "policy WG" (all the policies discussed > in the same list) and the other WG for non-policy discussions. > > 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 assure you, there is more than one WG, that I have not active taking part in and do not want to be forced to take in. It is not because I do not value other WGs, but I lack the time for meaningful contributions. If you want to foster participation, please do not try it by hinder actual participants. If a such small crowd of actual participants is real, I have no data on this, it contradicts your own statement of "lack of volunteers is due to the fact that existing ones can continue in perpetuity". > In other RIRs, all the policy proposals are managed in a single "main" PDP WG. > > 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 do not support this proposal. Kind regards, Christoph
