On 9 Apr 2021, at 15:03, Piotr Strzyzewski via address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> wrote:
And I would suggest to the working group to extend, if the WG agrees, to accept both applicants, so that we are going to a 3 chair WG.
That is wonderful idea. Full support from my side.
Sorry Piotr, strong opposition from my side. What’s the justification for an extra co-chair? The workload in this WG is diminishing and may well vanish soon. Address policy is effectively finished. There’s no more IPv4 to distribute and current policy seems good enough to handle the dregs of v4. LIRs generally get a single IPv6 allocation that’ll meet their needs for decades - not that we’ll run out of IPv6 in the forseeable future. I think this WG doesn’t really need two co-chairs, far less three. Though I suppose every WG should have two co-chairs to cover for absence and/or simplify succession planning. Please remember that 10+ years ago -- when tinkering with IPv4 allocation policy was at its peak -- Gert ran the WG all by himself. If one person was able to manage that when the WG had lots to do, why should today’s WG business need three people? IMO, it’s a mistake to add extra WG co-chairs just for the sake of it. Or to avoid choosing between two or more excellent and equally matched candidates. Do we really want to see RIPE become a forum where everybody is a co-chair of something or other?