[dns-wg] Volunteer list for RIPE DNS working group chair

> On Oct 15, 2020, at 6:24 PM, Jim Reid <jim at rfc1035.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 15 Oct 2020, at 22:47, Dave Knight <dave at shl.io> wrote:
> 
>> If the working group feels strongly about encouraging new faces perhaps we should amend the process such that new co-chairs may servce onlky a single term?
> 
> I’m not sure. Serving a single three year term seems too short IMO. A bit more stability would be desirable. Besides, is it the selection procedure that's discouraging new faces or could it be the incumbents are doing such a good job, nobody feels the need to disrupt that?

To be honest, I think the current situation is fine. If a co-chair is doing a great job then they probably get to serve for six years, if not they'll only serve three, if they're terrible the working group can replace them more expeditiously. We have a fair and open process which is exercised at least once per year and gives all comers an equal opportunity to throw their hat into the ring.


> Let’s first identify the problem before deciding what the solution is.

I think the working group did that several years ago and we're already living the solution.


> Maybe the co-chairs need to do a little succession planning: finding suitable candidates to mentor and then encouraging them to volunteer when the term limits kick in.

We're a year away from having an actual problem that may possibly need to be solved. I'd feel more comfortable encouraging everyone from the podium than individuals in the corridors, but I'm sure I could get over that if we actually find ourselves low on candidates.

In the last couple of times we have exercised the process we've had something like two weeks for private nominations followed by two weeks for public expressions of support. If we make the initial period longer it would give the chairs more time to do something proactive about a dearth of volunteers.


dave