On 25 Nov 2014, at 17:54, Nick Hilliard <n...@foobar.org> wrote: > 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.
Indeed. Sigh. > 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. But why should this be a problem? Presumably the WG can be trusted to select people who have those qualities. If it turns out not to be the case, the WG has the tools to get rid of someone who no longer has the confidence of the WG for whatever reason. The proposed mechanism includes a measure for removing any WG co-chair who was evil or incompetent or both. So it shouldn't be necessary to go beyond that. If this admittedly complacent attitude later turns out to have been a mistake, it can be addressed at that point. > 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. Not quite Nick. The main reasons for this WG chair selection-fest are accountability and transparency. It was not motivated by the recent need to remove a defective WG chair. Though admittedly some people felt at that time that the absence of a process to follow was a concern. Not that this gap made a difference to the outcome in that particular case once an angry mob with pitchforks and blazing torches made their feelings known in the relevant WG.
