[dns-wg] proposal for appointment/removal of WG co-chairs

On 9 Oct 2014, at 08:59, Gilles Massen <gilles.massen at restena.lu> wrote:

> Nice, simple, straightforward guidance for well behaving people. Love it.

Thanks Gilles.

>> [2] A co-chair will serve a term of N years, where N is the number
>> of co-chairs. Terms will be staggered so that one term expires every
>> year. A co-chair cannot serve more than 2 consecutive terms.
> 
> Why restrict strictly to 2 consecutive terms?  If WG and chairs are
> happy, why not keep them? (esp. if there are no other candidates)

The intention is to have an element of rotation so that new faces will be introduced from time to time. I suppose a well-respected co-chair could take a sabbatical for a year and take their chances in the appointment process the year after that. OTOH maybe that's not needed. It'll be for the WG to decide.

FWIW your co-chairs do not agree on whether this 2 consecutive clauses should be there or not. So we're asking all of you. :-) Perhaps there's a better trade-off between stability/continuity and letting things get stale. 

>> [3] The WG will be given adequate notice that a co-chair's term is
>> ending and to invite applications for that position. Anyone can
>> volunteer for appointment.
> 
> Can one be volonteered? (in case someone needs a gentle nudge)

Sure. Why not? It's quite likely someone might not think of putting themselves forward even though others consider they'd be a good candidate.

If need be, I suppose the other WG co-chairs could look for potential stuckees and apply some arm-twisting^W^Wfriendly persuasion.

The main idea here is to make the barriers to entry as low as possible. Anyone who's prepared to do the job should have no obstacles to applying. 

>> [4] At the end of a co-chair's term, the WG will decide by consensus 
>> who is appointed to the available co-chair position. In the event of a
>> tie, the consensus tied candidates will draw lots.
>> 
>> [5] The WG may decide by consensus to remove a WG co-chair at any time.
> 
> This may be the only point where I think something close to a majority
> is enough: if about half of the membership does no longer approve a
> co-chair, he may not longer be fit to play that role.

I would expect a reasonable co-chair to stand down immediately if there was a credible motion of no confidence against them and there would be no need for the WG to take that consensus decision. That's certainly what I would do. [Don't all rush at once! :-)] If things did get to that point, a consensus decision will be good enough IMO. In all likelihood that would be a majority decision one way or another. For some definition of majority.