On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 4:21 PM Jim Reid <j...@rfc1035.com> wrote: > > On 15 Oct 2020, at 23:40, Leo Vegoda <l...@vegoda.org> wrote: > > > > Succession planning is good but placing the burden on the chairs themselves > > seems a lot to ask. > > I strongly disagree Leo. For one thing, any burden from things like this is > why WG co-chairs get the big bucks. :-) When you’re in a leadership position > (for some definition of that term), it’s reasonable to be expected to show > some... er... leadership. Succession planning comes with the territory. As is > making an orderly handover when your term ends. > > Succession planning is not a lot to ask in terms of time or effort. Or > shouldn’t be. In my experience it’s far less of a resource drain than > planning or running a WG session. How hard can it be to identify a couple of > possible candidates, explain what the job entails (preferably over a tasty > beverage) and ask them if they’d be interested or willing to stand as a > co-chair?
I agree that having conversations with potential nominees to the role is completely appropriate. I just don't think that counts as planning. It's really just a hope that people with the right skills will be available at the right time. > Finally, if a WG's co-chairs can’t or won’t do the succession planning who > will? [Hopefully not yet another NomCom.] And would their efforts have any > credibility? Imagine if it was someone who had never run a WG or understood > the WG dynamics who tried to do the succession planning. A NomCom can't plan because its role is to select from the available options. Planning for this really needs to be done over a period of years so that we're not just relying on a couple of conversations over beer and the hope that people will have the time to volunteer. Regards, Leo
