Hi Jordi, On 10.02.21 14:13, 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.
I do not see any facts supporting your claim.
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.
This make no sense. If I would like to volunteer as a Adress Policy WG chair, it does not mean I would like to volunteer as IOT WG chair.
May be a model where we have a single "policy WG" (all the policies discussed in the same list) and the other WG for non-policy discussions.
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 assure you, there is more than one WG, that I have not active taking part in and do not want to be forced to take in. It is not because I do not value other WGs, but I lack the time for meaningful contributions. If you want to foster participation, please do not try it by hinder actual participants. If a such small crowd of actual participants is real, I have no data on this, it contradicts your own statement of "lack of volunteers is due to the fact that existing ones can continue in perpetuity".
In other RIRs, all the policy proposals are managed in a single "main" PDP WG.
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 do not support this proposal. Kind regards, Christoph