Hi Jordi, On Wed, 2021-02-10 at 14:13 +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list wrote: > I've the feeling that in part, the lack of volunteers is due to the > fact that existing ones can continue in perpetuity.
To prevent this becoming a problem most (maybe all?) working groups have a re-selection of working group chairs every couple of years. The only way a chair can stay in perpetuity is when the working group keeps selecting them to do so. If a working group wants new chairs there only needs to be a volunteer to run for chair and the working group to support them. > Also the details that we have in some cases 3 WG chairs and that > means 1 less chair available for another WG. That's not how it works. Limiting the number of chairs in (for example) IOT would not cause an extra person to be available to chair Address Policy. People usually only volunteer to chair working groups that have their personal interest. > 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. Different RIRs work in different ways. I like the structure in RIPE where the Address Policy working group not run by the RIR but by the community. > 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. No thanks, we have different working groups for different areas, and that is a feature. Imagine what would be the response when someone would suggest that all those WGs in the IETF are not good and that there should be one Engineering WG. Not a good idea. > 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 think you should look better. The group of people participating in Address Policy is very different from Anti Abuse or Routing. > In other RIRs, all the policy proposals are managed in a single > "main" PDP WG. That's their choice. We don't have to copy them. > 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". That's your proposal, and everybody can decide whether they think it is a good idea and want to adopt it in their region. I think it's a bad idea for the RIPE region. Cheers, Sander
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
