[ripe-list] RIPE WG Chairs Selection and Terms

Hi,


On Fri, 12 Feb 2021, Jim Reid wrote:

>> On 12 Feb 2021, at 11:26, Martin Winter <mwinter at netdef.org> 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