Selecting leadership for process issues

Brian E Carpenter brian@hursley.ibm.com
Mon, 02 Dec 2002 17:14:19 +0100


oops. ignore my scaling remark. the rest applies.

   Brian

Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 
> 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

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