[ripe-list] excuses for my response to provocations in the list yesterday

On 10/02/2021 13:13, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list wrote:
> Hi Nigel,
> 
> I've the feeling that in part, the lack of volunteers is due to the fact that existing ones can continue in perpetuity.

Well, possibly, but most of the WGs I've had anything to do with are
quite assiduous in trying to recruit new chairs.

> Also the details that we have in some cases 3 WG chairs and that means 1 less chair available for another WG. 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.

That's certainly a viable model and it seems to work in, for example,
ARIN, but I suspect that may be partly because the majority of proposals
are concerned with address policy, so the "PDP" working group becomes a
de-facto Address Policy WG. I'm not saying that this is a bad thing but
I do think that the RIPE way of doing things encourages the development
of non Address policy policies. However this is just an opinion.

> 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 does tell a lot, but what does it tell us?

> In other RIRs, all the policy proposals are managed in a single "main" PDP WG.

See above...

> 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".

I'm very much against term limits. I see no reason to remove someone
from office as long as they are performing the job properly.

Nigel