> On Oct 15, 2020, at 6:24 PM, Jim Reid <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 15 Oct 2020, at 22:47, Dave Knight <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> 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?
To be honest, I think the current situation is fine. If a co-chair is doing a
great job then they probably get to serve for six years, if not they'll only
serve three, if they're terrible the working group can replace them more
expeditiously. We have a fair and open process which is exercised at least once
per year and gives all comers an equal opportunity to throw their hat into the
ring.
> Let’s first identify the problem before deciding what the solution is.
I think the working group did that several years ago and we're already living
the solution.
> 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.
We're a year away from having an actual problem that may possibly need to be
solved. I'd feel more comfortable encouraging everyone from the podium than
individuals in the corridors, but I'm sure I could get over that if we actually
find ourselves low on candidates.
In the last couple of times we have exercised the process we've had something
like two weeks for private nominations followed by two weeks for public
expressions of support. If we make the initial period longer it would give the
chairs more time to do something proactive about a dearth of volunteers.
dave
