It would be actually dangerous if no one volunteered because the process we have currently works via the exchange of knowledge between two release managers and their collaboration.
That would essentially break what’s in the RFC, and actually considering how easily this could happen I would say it’s a fatal flaw.
The following I could see somehow happening:
we could have a monopoly over the position and be terrible to behold (not that anyone would complain )
- appoint people with conflicts of interest
There’s no protections against it. Like idk maybe not appoint two people from the same company.
- internal disagreement on who the next rm team will
RM B wants person C, but RM A thinks that’s a bad choice. Now we could handle
that like cordially or RM B could just go ahead and announce their appointment and ignore RM A.
RM A could either be quiet about it or have to make a big fuss with no clear way on how to remove both of these people now. (worst case) There’s probably some obvious ways to resolve that effectively.
A good thing currently about the two person team is, one gets incapacitated in some manner everything could possibly still be fine. But beyond that it’s like a novel with a bunch of plot holes. We’d probably have to make it up as we go if conflicts arise. I think the worst process crisis is when there is none, or there’s one but you can’t change it and it sucks. Currently we haven’t had a crisis with this, but we have other process crises like appointing nixpkgs committers and that one’s like having a leaky IV.
With all that in mind, I don’t think in all the releases something terrible like any of those things I mentioned has happened . But as time goes by and we’re building momentum towards making this position better and more people being interested, I think it’s important to analyze these possibilities and consider how this process feels and treats others. The role of an RM after all is to manage risks.