OPEN ISSUE: WG Chair Selection (in general)

[Bound, Jim]

I agree.
/jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Hinden [mailto:hinden at IPRG.nokia.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 6:11 PM
> To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand
> Cc: problem-statement at alvestrand.no
> Subject: Re: OPEN ISSUE: WG Chair Selection (in general)
> 
> 
> Harald,
> 
> >One thing I'm afraid of, though, is the degree to which the WG chair
> >selection can be a tool of "corporate gameplaying".
> >When an AD is the sole judge of which candidate is best for 
> a position, 
> >he/she can (and has been!) accused of picking the person 
> based on personal 
> >or company bias; this is hard to defend against, and the 
> accusation, if 
> >made, can be quite harmful to the cooperation climate of a 
> working group - 
> >one risks the AD going into "reverse discrimination mode" 
> and seeking 
> >candidates that are obviously unaffiliated, even if they are 
> not the best 
> >people available.
> 
> Part of protecting against perceptions of company bias is to 
> make sure that 
> company affiliations are public.  I noticed that we no longer 
> list company 
> affiliations on the IESG and IAB member pages.  This makes it 
> hard to tell 
> some of the IAB and IESG members company affiliation.  For 
> example looking 
> at the email address of the IESG and IAB, one might conclude 
> that we have 
> people affiliated with:
> 
> 2       ATT
> 1       Cisco
> 1       Docomo
> 1       Hactrn
> 1       Hotmail
> 2       IBM
> 1       ICIR
> 1       IETF
> 1       IIJ
> 1       Lucent
> 1       Mindspring
> 1       Mrochek
> 1       Neustar
> 3       PSG
> 1       Qualcomm
> 1       RTFM
> 1       Sun
> 1       Telstra
> 1       Thinkingcat
> 1       UCL
> 1       Vigilsec
> 
> But doing some research (RFCs, IDs, google, etc.) the 
> following list is 
> generated:
> 
> 1       Alcatel
> 2       ATT
> 2       Cisco
> 1       Docomo
> 1       Hactrn
> 2       IBM
> 1       ICIR
> 2       IIJ
> 2       Lucent
> 1       Microsoft
> 1       Mindspring
> 1       Mrochek
> 1       Neustar
> 1       Qualcomm
> 1       RTFM
> 1       Sun
> 1       Telstra
> 1       Thinkingcat
> 1       UCL
> 1       Vigil Security
> 
> A bit different.  I think it is important to always show the company 
> affiliations of IAB, IESG, Nomcom, working group chairs, and document 
> authors.  Having this information be hidden or murkey can give the 
> appearance of "corporate game playing" too.  Much better if 
> everything be 
> in the open and transparent.
> 
> Bob
> 
> 
>