> On 12 Feb 2021, at 13:54, Carlos Friaças <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> 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”.
[Citation needed.] AFAICT most of the WGCC have been there for < 5-6 years. Off
the top of my head only 4 or 5 out of 25+ have been around for over 10 years.
That doesn’t seem all that stale to me. Not that the WGCC does anything
particularly useful or influential. If you can bear the tedium, read the
minutes of their meetings.
>> 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...
[Citation needed.] What has the WG(s) in question said or done about that?
>> 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".
[Citation needed.] What have you or the rest of the WG done about that? Has the
WG put forward new candidates? Did you or others who share your view volunteer?
> Not everybody plays by "knowing when to step down"...
[Citation needed.] Have you ever suggested to someone they've been around for
too long and should step down? What was their response? Did you have those
conversations with the WG’s other co-chairs (or the RIPE Chair)? What was their
response?
Saying "Not everybody plays by knowing when to step down” is all very well. It
would help a lot if could you please cite actual examples instead of vague
perceptions.
Let’s have a clear understanding of the problem statement before deciding the
solutions.
