Open Process Issue: Improvement WG Chair Selection

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand]

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


--On 21. juni 2003 10:36 +0900 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

>
> 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.
>
>
>