I couldn't agree more with the former and less with the latter. I think external evaluation panels (and in particular, from a third country) are the way to go.

I couldn't agree more with the former and less with the latter. I think external evaluation panels (and in particular, from a third country) are the way to go. We already have good examples, for example, in ERC grant panels. The ERC uses exactly the strategy you mention and it has an impeccable reputation, I know many people who applied with or without success but I know no one who felt treated unfairly. But I'm against blanket rules prohibiting postdocs or positions at the same place of the PhD, at least from my Southern European (Spanish) point of view. This is often touted in Southern European countries because in the US no one does that so it must be evil, so clearly we should ban it to be more like Americans and see if this makes our scientific productivity closer to theirs. But European (especially Southern European) culture is not US culture. People want to settle down, be near their loved ones, and there's nothing intrinsically bad about that that should be punished. Plus, the job market is much less dynamic so even for those who don't mind bumping around, it can be hard to reconcile with a possible spouse who has a career too. And finally, if you push people in this region to move, most of the time the result will be that they end up in a Northern European country (or the US, Canada, etc.) where they make 3x or 4x more, and never come back - once you have experienced a much better salary it's hard to justify returning, I have seen it plenty of times. Bring on the external evaluation panels, and then there will be no need for any measure forcing people to move, which would reduce inclusivity and thus the talent pool.