[dns-wg] reminder about the WG Chair appointment process

On 25/11/2014 14:42, Jim Reid wrote:
> Nick, thanks for your comments.
> 
> I'm both surprised and disappointed. Surprised because the mood of the
> room/WG appears to be the proposed text is "good enough". Nobody has
> advocated making radical surgery to it despite the proposed text being
> in circulation for almost two months now. I'm disappointed that you've
> not provided alternate text to address the concerns you raised. This is
> not helpful.

You're welcome for the comments.  I wasn't able to make the london wg
session and only subscribed to the mailing list on Oct 11, which was a
couple of days after the previous discussion about chair proposals ended.
Timing is everything, apparently.

>> There's no discriminator in place to decide who gets to stand down if
>> N changes and two chairs need to stand down at the same time, or if
>> somehow the chair terms become synchronised.
> 
> Just apply common sense. If we go from 3 to 2 WG co-chairs, the one
> that's next due to stand down does not get replaced and the remaining
> ones get their terms cut by one year. If we then go from 2 to 3, do the
> reverse: extend the current terms by a year and slot in a new co-chair
> appointment at the newly-created gap in the cycle. If a co-chair leaves
> mid-term, the replacement (if one) gets appointed for the remainder of
> that term and we carry on from there: no muss, no fuss. Says he making
> it up as he goes along.... :-)

I don't disagree with any of this, including the common sense thing, but
you've put your finger on the core issue: making things up as you go along
is fine in situations where the WG chairs are both benign and competent.

Problems arise where either of these attributes is missing, which is one of
the core reasons why there is a move to have WG selection guidelines in the
first place.

>> What happens if the WG goes to blazes and there's only one chair and
>> that chair is subject of a mutiny?
> 
> If that ever happens, bring in Bijal to kill the WG. :-)

eh yeah, I cannot confirm or deny deleting that suggestion from my original
email before clicking send.  But on a more serious note, being prime
instigator in a certain incident not wholly unrelated to this, some
guidelines / procedures would have things a lot easier for everyone
involved.  It's good to see that you've explicitly mentioned chair removal
in the appointment text because it's important.

> There's nothing in the current proposal to deal with one of the WG
> co-chairs getting incapacitated by killer sharks with mind-control
> lasers. Or all co-chairs disappearing in a mysterious boating accident
> involving the Loch Ness monster.

Indeed no, nor do we need things like this; just that the proposals be
unambiguous and straightforward, and that they cover most situations.

Nick