>
>> 2 or 3 terms, plus a "freeze period" (1 term? 1 year?) to avoid
>> cases where a chair "jumps" to another WG.
>
> I would completely support this if there weren't already problems in
> getting enough people to take on the extra workload of becoming a WG
> chair.
>
It could also be the other way round. People might be discouraged to run
against the long-time chairs.
**** Exactly, that's was my point, it looks that I was not able to find the
best wording. I've seen that in other organizations, not just here.
1) You ask for volunteers to replace "existing co-chair a"
2) There are 1-2 volunteers
3) "existing co-chair a" say, I will also volunteer to continue
4) There are comments like "existing co-chair a" has been there for long time,
he knows the job ...
5) the 1-2 volunteers then drop-out.
May be the recommendation should be "2 terms maximum, 2 years each, then 1 year
minimum stop, unless there are no other volunteers to fill the vacancy".
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure,
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
