Open Process Issue: Improvement WG Chair Selection
sob at harvard.edu
Sat Jun 21 08:15:18 CEST 2003
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
>From problem-statement-bounces at alvestrand.no Fri Jun 20 21:36:34 2003
Delivered-To: problem-statement at alvestrand.no
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 10:36:19 +0900
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
From: Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>
To: problem-statement at alvestrand.no
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552)
Subject: Open Process Issue: Improvement WG Chair Selection
X-BeenThere: problem-statement at alvestrand.no
List-Id: Problem Statement <problem-statement.alvestrand.no>
<mailto:problem-statement-request at alvestrand.no?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:problem-statement at alvestrand.no>
List-Help: <mailto:problem-statement-request at alvestrand.no?subject=help>
<mailto:problem-statement-request at alvestrand.no?subject=subscribe>
Sender: problem-statement-bounces at alvestrand.no
Errors-To: problem-statement-bounces at alvestrand.no
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?
More information about the Problem-statement