Subject: Open Process Issue: Improvement WG Chair Selection

From: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 10:36:19 +0900

While reviewing issues for an upcoming release of the
process document, the issue of how the chair(s) of the
improvement group were to be chosen stood out
as having not been discussed to any length.

There was recommendation that it be done by the General
Area AD.  And there was one voice of concurrence.

So, is it safe to conclude that this reflects WG consensus?
Or do the topic get lost in the shuffle?  Opinions please.

If it is consensus, a further question is, does the WG want
to recommend a process by which the AD will choose the
chair?  E.g. does the WG want to recommend an open process
similar to that used by Harald in selecting the chairs for this
WG group. Or, should the manner of selection it be left to the
AD  as is currently the rule?

Thanks
a.

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 07:15:18 -0400 (EDT)

I think the process used to select the chairs of the problem 
group should be used to select the chair(s) of the solution WG

Scott

---
>From [email-masked]  Fri Jun 20 21:36:34 2003
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 10:36:19 +0900
From: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Open Process Issue: Improvement WG Chair Selection
Sender: [email-masked]

Thanks
a.

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 07:23:01 -0400

>group should be used to select the chair(s) of the solution WG

I agree.

Margaret

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 07:03:22 -0500

Speaking as one of the 17, I thought the process used to select the
chairs was refreshingly helpful. My only negative thought was that
it was so different from the way other chairs have been chosen that
it took me a few minutes to figure out that Harald was "interviewing"
me. But I can be slow sometimes.

I also note that, like SIR, this is a change we made that did not require
formal approval, and we now have some implementation experience to
base further refinements on.

In summary, one of the best process improvements I've seen this year.

Spencer

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 07:13:29 -0700

> group should be used to select the chair(s) of the solution WG

works for me

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 09:39:41 -0700

Scott,

SB> I think the process used to select the chairs of the problem 
SB> group should be used to select the chair(s) of the solution WG

sounds good.

d/
--
 Dave Crocker <mailto:[email-masked]>
 Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
 Sunnyvale, CA  USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>, <fax:+1.866.358.5301>

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 14:28:53 -0400

while it would probably be improper for me to try to influence the advice 
of the group too much.....

please try to provide what you think in terms of advice and "what you are 
trying to achieve" rather than "this is the exact procedure that must be 
followed".
The difference is the amount of flexibility one has when trying to in fact 
implement the "protocol".

For example.... During the process of selecting the problem-statement 
chair, it became clear that two chairs was a better idea than one; if I had 
(for instance) been confined to "filling the positions originally 
advertised", I wouldn't have been able to do the Right Thing and pick two.

It's so easy to get a process into silly states...

                  Harald

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 15:07:52 -0400

> group should be used to select the chair(s) of the solution WG

Since you seem to be collecting "votes", I concur with Scott and 
other.   I'd state it differently, e.g., as "I think the General 
AD" should do this according to normal process and what makes 
sense to him, with the recommendation that the procedure used to 
select the chairs of this group seems to have worked well enough 
to make a process norm for this sort of thing.

   john