[ripe-list] excuses for my response to provocations in the list yesterday
- Previous message (by thread): [ripe-list] excuses for my response to provocations in the list yesterday
- Next message (by thread): [ripe-list] excuses for my response to provocations in the list yesterday
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jan Zorz - Go6
jan at go6.si
Thu Feb 11 11:52:37 CET 2021
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
- Previous message (by thread): [ripe-list] excuses for my response to provocations in the list yesterday
- Next message (by thread): [ripe-list] excuses for my response to provocations in the list yesterday
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]