Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
I hope you don't mean a term limit. Making chair appointments annually
renewable might work - but limiting the pool of talent by imposing
term limits would be self-inflicted damage, IMHO.
At least in the WGs that I know, there are a fairly large number of
people who would be capable of leading the WG. Clearly, this may not be
the case everywhere. I don't think a strict term limit is needed, just
an expectation that chair positions are temporary and time-limited, with
regular review and explicit re-appointment. Having the chair report to
the community at such intervals might be part of the re-appointment
process. Meeting milestones would presumably be part of the reporting.
Indeed. But please remember that even if we need to get serious in the
way you describe, if we make the requirements too onerous, it will
become hard to find willing WG chairs. But personally, I'd be in favour
of an explicit re-appointment requirement.
(3) All WGs should have a WG secretary as a "junior chair", keeping
track of deadlines, LC comments and the like. WG secretaries need to
be listed on the WG web page. The expectation is that a good WG
secretary will be promoted to chair, thus providing an incentive.
Some WGs do this today, but it seems rare. (I don't think any are
listed on WG pages.)
Very often this is done by one of the co-chairs; it's a WG choice whether
they do it that way or appoint a secretary.
Unfortunately, the secretary position seems to have no standing and does
not appear to be listed on the WG page. I'm suggesting upgrading and
recognizing the position, while not requiring it. Small WGs can probably
function well without it.
It does have standing; section 6.2 of RFC 2418 (BCP 25). They can be listed
on the charter page. But I agree it's little used.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf