Hi,
On Fri, 12 Feb 2021, Jim Reid wrote:
On 12 Feb 2021, at 11:26, Martin Winter <[email protected]> wrote:
I'm prefer to find a solution without limits on terms.
IMO, there?s no one-size-fits-all solution to this issue. It?s unwise (and
probably impossible) to try to create one.
WGs should be left to decide for themselves what works best for them.
Sometimes, that?ll mean term limits. Sometimes it won?t.
I can understand that. However, that impacts the "WG Chair Collective".
Not all WGs are the same. And for a few of them, continuity will be far more
important than other considerations.
I have recently been told about the "a team of one" concept...
There should of course be a healthy replacement of WG leadership: enough to
ensure things don?t get stale
Depends on "things". In some cases stale is certainly a "feature".
but not so much that continuity or institutional memory gets lost. That
balance and those trade-offs will be different in each WG. Which is why
each WG should get to decide how they handle this.
Not everybody plays by "knowing when to step down"...
Term limits in some WGs like DNS or IoT are fine IMO. For WGs like Coop or AA
(say) who interact more with the authorities, not so much.
Disagree.
We should also think very, very carefully before imposing policies top-down.
RIPE, like most Internet institutions, has always used bottom-up policy
development. It should stick with that model because it produces the best
outcomes.
I thought RIPE is/was a Community.
RIPE NCC is an (not for profit, formal) Internet institution.
Cheers,
Carlos
