OPEN ISSUE: WG Chair Selection

[Joel M. Halpern]

There are actually two very different cases.
For simplicity, let me discuss them both in terms of an existing working 
group (both cases exist for new working groups, but there are other issues 
that cloud things.)

One case is where you have a chair who for one or another reason has chosen 
to step down.  You are going to have to find a new chair.  Announcing the 
opening would not in and of itself cause a problem.

The other case is where the AD wants / needs to replace the chair when the 
chair would not on his own step down.  (Presume the AD has already 
discussed the causes with the current chair, but probably not the intended 
action.)  The AD probably does not want to force the issue until there is a 
good replacement chair available.  As such, making a public announcement 
would be "interesting".

And of course, having two different procedures would mean that one was 
publicising which case actually applied...

We can make personnel management harder if we want, but is that really a 
good idea?

Note that having said all that, it would be really good to have better 
mechanisms for finding chairs, and for finding new blood to serve as 
chairs.  Appointing chairs was the part of the AD job I hated when I was 
doing that.  I just think it is more complex than the exchange below suggests.

Yours,
Joel

At 03:06 PM 5/16/2003 +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> >
> > Currently, the process document says:
> >
> > >We may also want to reconsider the process that is used to select
> > >WG chairs. In particular, ADs could be encouraged to announce WG
> > >chair openings within their areas and/or to identify and develop
> > >more potential leaders.  [OPEN ISSUE: Is there IETF consensus that
> > >we have a problem in this area?]
> >
> > I don't think that we should change our official procedures
> > in this area.
> >
> > I do think it would be good if ADs would communicate open WG
> > chairs slots to the community and request input regarding
> > potential candidates.
> >
> > However, it is important for ADs and WG chairs to have a good
> > relationship, and for the AD to have authority over the WG
> > chair.  I believe that the current reporting relationship
> > (AD chooses WG chair, chair serves at ADs pleasure) is
> > appropriate.
>
>Agreed
>
>     Brian