Selecting leadership for process issues
Margaret Wasserman
mrw@windriver.com
Tue, 03 Dec 2002 10:03:29 -0500
The nomcom approach also has the advantage that they know who is being
considered for IESG/IAB roles, and can make sure that we don't select
a leader who is then placed on the IESG or the IAB in March...
Margaret
At 04:37 PM 12/2/2002 -0500, RJ Atkinson wrote:
>On Monday, Dec 2, 2002, at 15:35 America/Montreal, Harald Tveit Alvestrand
>wrote:
>>--On mandag, desember 02, 2002 13:07:39 -0500 RJ Atkinson
>><rja@extremenetworks.com> wrote:
>>>It seems to me that because of its critical importance, this might be a
>>>good topic for even broader community input (broader than the set of
>>>folks on this list).
>>so are you suggesting a call for nominations, or a more wide-ranging
>>discussion of how we should pick the leader(s) of the effort?
>
>I think the community should be fully informed about and have an opportunity
>to object to the proposed approach for selecting the leader of the effort.
>
>Separately, I think that opening the leader selection process to public
>nominations would be healthy.
>
>In detail, I think that one good approach is the one gih has mentioned,
>where Nomcom, who are already collecting a lot of community input
>(including input on perceived issues with the way IAB/IESG handle things),
>make the choice based on usual open nominations -- but even for that approach,
>the community should be asked for input and given a chance to object to the
>approach, before picking that approach. Other good approaches might also
>exist.
>
>Ran