Selecting leadership for process issues

[Brian E Carpenter]

Edward Lewis wrote:
...
> 
> In this case, having the IESG name a WG chair presents a bit of a
> conflict of interest - the chair is put in place and can be recalled
> at any time by the very person/people holding roles that could be
> undermined by what is discussed before the chair.  

I don't find that a strong argument. Such conflicts are common
in managerial relationships, and the AD-WGC relationship is
nothing if not managerial. At least in the IETF, any firing is
out in the open, and there are appeals mechanisms in place.

In fact, firing a WG chair is just about the hardest thing an
AD ever has to do, and I think ADs hate to do it.

> Perhaps the chair
> should be named via the same process as the nomcom chair (ISOC)?

Firstly, that's a totally hidden mechanism, probably the most hidden
process rule we have. Secondly, it doesn't scale. The ISOC President 
can be expected to do due diligence on this one post per year, but 
not on every WG chair appointment.

> Perhaps we should have the chair named via input from other
> organizations that peer with the IETF?

I'd assume that the ADs take input from many sources. The question
is whether the process can be opened up some, without turning
it into a beauty contest.

    Brian