I prefer to diversity appoint WG chairs with limited time of about 2- 4
years to achieve determined milestones with the WG charter.
On Sunday, November 10, 2013, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 11/10/2013 12:34 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
a realistic attitude toward the historic pool of working group chairs is
warranted. I don't have a lot of experience with appointing working group
chairs yet, but thus far when I have sought out working group chairs, the
female candidates who seemed qualified have told me they don't have time,
or aren't interested.
I think those female candidate don't want trouble within an impolite
possibility.
I have an uncomfortable and risky idea that we might want to consider:
WG Chairs have always been selected through a private (opaque) process.
Yes, but hopefully does not involve external businesses. I hope the ADs
follow a diversity model to get the appoint process right.
So...
Without changing the /authority/ of the AD to make appointments, what
about having the AD circulate a list of candidates to the pre-wg mailing
list and solicit comments.
It is better if AD selects but not for long times, there should be a limit
like 4 years. To give chances to others. To prevent ADs to make private
group with WG chairs.
This will likely have at least three significant effects:
1. The community can see what the variety to the list is, including
across lists; that is, the community will be able to evaluate a given slate
and a pattern of slates.
Community feed backs privately to ADs but not on lists.
2. The community will be able to know who to comment on, as input to
the AD
Preferred given inputs to ADs and only IESG monitors ADs, and notice status.
3. ADs will probably be rather more thoughtful about the 'community'
aspects of their choices.
Yes and if sent to IESG it will be more monitored. The appointment needs to
have time limit or milestones of achieving charters objectives.
AB