Re: [wg-c] Agreement on method for consensus determination

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

The "legislative history" of the idea of a General Assembly came 
from the "Irish Proposal", and the model in mind was clearly the 
IETF.  So it might be useful to review how the IETF works.

The standard model in the IETF is that *anyone* may put together a WG
charter, which includes specifying the chair(s).  The IESG (in
particular, the Area Director for the area in which the WG falls),
must approve the charter, including the choice of chair.  Multiple
chairpersons are quite common.  The AD may reject the WG proposal if
it is poorly formed; if the topic lacks substance; if there is no
evidence of sufficient interest to support the effort.  You need 
some AD to support your WG; but the ADs generally aren't dogmatic 
about this, because if they believe the WG will fail, they can just 
let it fail -- WGs fail all the time, the ADs job is to discourage 
WGs that will obviously fail, and to encourage those that might 
produce something.

There is no specified mechanism in the IETF for further specifying
how the WG chairs are selected -- any method may be used, from a vote
to finding a volunteer to an arbitrary selection.  Frequently it is
difficult to find people who want to do the work, and people who are
develop a reputation as a good WG chair are highly respected and
valued in the organization, and they are frequently sought out not 
for their technical expertise -- there are lots of people with 
technical expertise -- but because they have a rare knack of cutting 
through the bullshit, and facilitating group accomplishment.

It is important to remember that if things are set up well, the WG 
chair is a facilitator, and is *not* someone who has a strong 
position to present.  A good WG chair may have strong opinions, but 
they really must mute them if they are to be effective.

> My proposal is to have an interim chairman nominated by the pNC, and let's
> the working to decide of its chairman !!! I think that the co chair is not a
> good idea in terms of botton up process and if we need to reach a consensus
> we don't have it right now.

1) in practice, co-chairs can work out quite well;
2) of course we don't have consensus right now.  How could we -- 
we've only been at this a couple of days.

Sigfried nominated me for WG co-chair -- I'm not at all sure I would
be a good choice, but I don't know enough about the other
participants yet to know who would be a good choice, and neither do
any of the rest of us.  I would like there to be a bit more
discussion with some substance before we charge off having elections
or anything like that.  There is a great deal to discuss before any 
decisions are reached.

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain