OPEN ISSUE: WG Chair Selection

[Spencer Dawkins]

Dear Dave,

I believe that this thread was actually about the general
process of selecting a chair for any WG, not about the
mechanisms we're discussing for choosing leadership
for the Solutions WG (we seem to be converging on a 
"less change is better than more change" for the Solutions
AD and WG chair(s), but we've seen other proposals
for this unique selection process on this mailing list).

Dear All,

Having said this - I do agree with the expressed desire
for more awareness that a WG chair position is open.

I found Harald's process for choosing co-chairs for the
Problem Statement working group to be encouraging,
and would like to see something like this become
more common in the IETF.

Subject to the "ADs and WG chairs must have a
good relationship" caveat that Margaret mentioned...

Spencer

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dave Crocker" <dhc at dcrocker.net>
To: "Margaret Wasserman" <mrw at windriver.com>
Cc: <problem-statement at alvestrand.no>
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2003 10:05 PM
Subject: Re: OPEN ISSUE: WG Chair Selection


> Margaret,
> 
> 
> MW> However, it is important for ADs and WG chairs to have a good
> MW> relationship, and for the AD to have authority over the WG
> MW> chair.  I believe that the current reporting relationship
> MW> (AD chooses WG chair, chair serves at ADs pleasure) is
> MW> appropriate.
> 
> 
> So the chair and working group who well might specify changes to the
> IESG are to be managed by someone in the IESG?
> 
> I always thought that "conflict of interest" was a pretty simple
> concept.
> 
> How many of us would like to be hired by someone who gives us the job of
> telling them what their job will be?
> 
> d/
> --
>  Dave Crocker <mailto:dcrocker at brandenburg.com>
>  Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
>  Sunnyvale, CA  USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>, <fax:+1.866.358.5301>
>