OPEN ISSUE: Improvement WG Chair Selection

[Brian E Carpenter]

Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> 
> The process document currently says:
> 
> >Another open question is how the chairs for the IETF Improvement WG
> >should be selected.  As with the organization and management of the
> >WG, this document offers two choices:
> >
> >    - The chair(s) of the WG could be selected by the "responsible
> >      AD", or equivalent -- either the General AD or the ISOC
> >      President.
> >    - The chair(s) of the WG could be selected by the Nominations
> >      Committee (Nomcom), or by a Nomcom-like group assembled for
> >      the purpose.
> >
> >Either method of chair selection could be applied to either method
> >of WG oversight.
> 
> As I stated earlier, I believe that the IESG-driven approach
> should be used.
> 
> In that case, I believe that the General AD (as "responsible
> AD" for the proposed WG) should choose the chairs.  

I concur
   Brian

> IMO, the
> General AD should be fairly public about the process of chair
> selection (similar to what was done for the problem-statement
> WG), but should have the ultimate responsibility for this
> decision.
> 
> The Nomcom-like approach seems compelling, but I believe that
> it has three flaws:
> 
>     - The process is too heavy-weight and would delay
>       initiation of the WG.
>     - This approach could choose a chair that the "responsible
>       AD" does not know or trust.
>     - There is no provision for what should happen if a chair
>       needs to be replaced (for non-performance, resignation,
>       etc.).  Spinning up a Nomcom again could create an
>       unacceptable delay for the work of the group.
> 
> Margaret

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