> On 15 Oct 2020, at 23:40, Leo Vegoda <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Succession planning is good but placing the burden on the chairs themselves
> seems a lot to ask.
I strongly disagree Leo. For one thing, any burden from things like this is why
WG co-chairs get the big bucks. :-) When you’re in a leadership position (for
some definition of that term), it’s reasonable to be expected to show some...
er... leadership. Succession planning comes with the territory. As is making an
orderly handover when your term ends.
Succession planning is not a lot to ask in terms of time or effort. Or
shouldn’t be. In my experience it’s far less of a resource drain than planning
or running a WG session. How hard can it be to identify a couple of possible
candidates, explain what the job entails (preferably over a tasty beverage) and
ask them if they’d be interested or willing to stand as a co-chair?
Finally, if a WG's co-chairs can’t or won’t do the succession planning who
will? [Hopefully not yet another NomCom.] And would their efforts have any
credibility? Imagine if it was someone who had never run a WG or understood the
WG dynamics who tried to do the succession planning.
