Subject: OPEN ISSUE: Improvement WG Chair Selection

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 12:08:13 -0400

The process document currently says:

>Another open question is how the chairs for the IETF Improvement WG
>should be selected.  As with the organization and management of the
>WG, this document offers two choices:
>
>    - The chair(s) of the WG could be selected by the "responsible
>      AD", or equivalent -- either the General AD or the ISOC
>      President.
>    - The chair(s) of the WG could be selected by the Nominations
>      Committee (Nomcom), or by a Nomcom-like group assembled for
>      the purpose.
>
>Either method of chair selection could be applied to either method
>of WG oversight.

As I stated earlier, I believe that the IESG-driven approach
should be used.

In that case, I believe that the General AD (as "responsible
AD" for the proposed WG) should choose the chairs.  IMO, the
General AD should be fairly public about the process of chair
selection (similar to what was done for the problem-statement
WG), but should have the ultimate responsibility for this
decision.

The Nomcom-like approach seems compelling, but I believe that
it has three flaws:

    - The process is too heavy-weight and would delay
      initiation of the WG.
    - This approach could choose a chair that the "responsible
      AD" does not know or trust.
    - There is no provision for what should happen if a chair
      needs to be replaced (for non-performance, resignation,
      etc.).  Spinning up a Nomcom again could create an
      unacceptable delay for the work of the group.

Margaret

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 14:56:17 +0200

Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> AD" for the proposed WG) should choose the chairs.  

I concur
   Brian

> IMO, the

-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brian E Carpenter 
Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM 
On assignment at the IBM Zurich Laboratory, Switzerland