--On Tuesday, November 10, 2015 16:21 -0500 Kathleen Moriarty
<kathleen(_dot_)moriarty(_dot_)ietf(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
I do appreciate your points and have done a mix of the above.
In a number of cases, the WGs I work with have experienced
chairs that are excellent mentors, so there isn't much to do
on that front. In other cases, a few helpful calls to assist
newer WG chairs has paid off in leaps and bounds. And then
there are other cases, where replacing is the best option. I
wouldn't dream of discussing any of the details on a public
mailing list, but I've had all 3 occur. My point was that I
don't think you should automatically jump to replacing chairs
if you can quickly get to the root of a problem and help the
chairs, even behind the scenes. We won't develop good future
leaders if we just fire people and provide no coaching. I
don't think that was your intent, but maybe I wasn't clear
that I see the usefulness in each of the options and being a
good manager is knowing which is best when. A couple of
coaching points may save a lot more AD time than replacing
chairs. There should be balance and the ability to do what
makes the most sense. If we want to improve our culture, we
should be looking at these types of options, otherwise who
would want to chair WGs? (Rhetorical).
I think we are in violent agreement, at least on principles. I
agree that firing (either of WG Chair(s) or of WGs) is a last
resort. My "should do it more often" comment stands -- there
have been many cases in which someone has become completely
disfunctional, won't respond to coaching or more aggressive
tactics, but is retained far longer than is really sensible.
My main point was that pairing a first-time or not-quite-ready
Chair with some explicit assistance and coaching is useful,
something we don't do often enough, and need not be (and usually
should not be) the AD. Part of the reason it shouldn't be the
AD is to reduce workload; the other part is that it is usually
better to have the AD in a position to evaluate Chair and WG
success without being intimately involved, especially if the AD
is also responsible for evaluating the quality of both the
technical work and the consensus that produced it. I also
suggest that it is rarely a good idea to put one or two very
experienced people in charge of a WG, not because has a negative
effect on the work but because it throws away an opportunity for
leadership development.
best,
john