OPEN ISSUE: WG Chair Selection

Joel M. Halpern joel at stevecrocker.com
Tue May 20 12:32:07 CEST 2003


It appears to me that it is not a common problem to need to replace a WG 
chair.
However, when a chair needs to be replaced it is often because they do not 
get it.

You question suggests I was less than clear about the problem.
The case is where the current chair is not seeking to step 
down.  Presumably he is "willing to step down" since he has no 
choice.  Presumably, the AD has already attempted to teach the current 
chair how to do a better job (that is always preferable to replacing the chair.

I suppose if the current chair is doing a bad enough job, the cost of 
stalling the working group while you find a replacement is worth it, and 
since this is a rare case I guess we could deal with it.

I suspect that in reality even if the rules require a public call for 
volunteers, an AD will not be likely to fire a chair unless he knows he has 
at least one good candidate lined up and willing.

This may encourage gaming the system a little.
But I may be worrying too much about optimizing a corner case.
Getting good input and volunteers for chairing working groups is a good idea.

Yours,
Joel

At 07:19 AM 5/20/2003 -0500, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
>Dear Joel,
>
>I understand your distinction between WG chairs leaving and
>"leaving with assistance".
>
>I've got to ask - how common IS the case where a WG chair is
>
>(1) not performing to the point where s/he should be replaced, and
>(2) not willing to step down?
>
>If this happens once a year, I'd say "tough, let the AD announce
>the impending replacement publically and ask for input anyway".
>It's not like anything is getting done in the WG anyway, right?
>
>If this happens once per IETF per area (for instance), that might be
>different. But I'd like to see more openness, and don't want to shut
>down an opportunity for more openness to accommodate an rare
>case, if it's really rare.
>
>Spencer
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Joel M. Halpern" <joel at stevecrocker.com>
>To: <problem-statement at alvestrand.no>
>Sent: Friday, May 16, 2003 9:44 AM
>Subject: Re: OPEN ISSUE: WG Chair Selection
>
>
> > 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




More information about the Problem-statement mailing list