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

On 11/02/2021 09:00, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list wrote:
>> 
>>> 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".

No.

I understand the sympathy towards "people might be discouraged to run 
against the long-time chairs" and we should encourage young and fresh 
energy into taking a chairing roles and leading roles - but as many up 
to now already pointed out: This is a community and not some 
governmental organization or court.

If long-standing chairs are performing well, doing their job and WG is 
active and producing satisfying results - I see no issue with them 
continuing the good job that they were doing up to date.

Believe me - if there is any sign of chair not doing the right thing and 
when this continues - the process of "rotation" will start among the 
participants of particular WG and at the end of a day the chair in 
question will be hinted to just not stand up again for re-election and 
problem will be solved one way or another.

And at the end of a day, stability of WGs is also something that counts 
- provided that WGs are not stalling and doing their job.

On the other hand - if WG has good chairs that are taking a WG work to 
another level and their term expires and there are no other candidates 
to chair the WG - what happens then? Because of some rules that were 
meant to solve some corner cases you loose good chairs?

Come on Jordi, you know better than that...

Cheers, Jan