> > I hope you don't mean a term limit. Making chair appointments annually > > renewable might work - but limiting the pool of talent by imposing > > term limits would be self-inflicted damage, IMHO. > At least in the WGs that I know, there are a fairly large number of > people who would be capable of leading the WG. Clearly, this may not be > the case everywhere. I don't think a strict term limit is needed, just > an expectation that chair positions are temporary and time-limited, with > regular review and explicit re-appointment. Having the chair report to > the community at such intervals might be part of the re-appointment > process. Meeting milestones would presumably be part of the reporting. IMO, there is a quite a lot to be said about the above. What we really need to do is _change_ the current culture, in which chairs are sort of assumed to have the job for life (so long as they want it), and having ADs make (involuntary) chair changes is painful enough that it mostly only happens in extreme situations. What would help is: 1) clear expectations of what the chair is supposed to do. 2) Regular/periodic performance review. I.e., is the chair doing what is expected of them? Are there clear metrics that show this (like concrete progress on documents, meeting milestones, etc.) 3) regular/periodic review of what type of chair the WG actually needs, and whether the current chairs are still the best for the job. (WGs go through different phases, and the skills needed to make progress during the various phases varies.) I am not personally a fan of term limits -- they have significant downsides. But I do think that we should be more aggressive in moving chairs around, and the community should both demand results from the chairs and put pressure on WGs to perform better when they are not meeting expectations. Thomas _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf