Chairs

[William Allen Simpson <[e-mail]>]

> From: Carl Malamud <[e-mail]>
> We didn't address the appointment of working group chairs as this
> is something that the Technical Task Force can do once the structure
> is in place.  Rather than open up yet another can of worms, we asked
> ourselves if the model we propose can handle situations like that.
> If so, no need to put the issue into the bootstrap document.
>
Actually, I think that this is an important can of worms to open.
The selection of the leaders/figureheads has a great deal to
do with the perception of who answers to whom.

Right now, the ISoc chair selects the IAB, the IAB selects the IETF
chair, the IETF chair selects the IESG, the IESG selects the WG chairs.

I want it *clear* that it goes the other way!  And that each group
selects their own chair.

> I don't think single-year terms is really a good thing.  We want to
> select our leaders, but they should then have enough time to grow into
> their position and then exercise leadership.  Having terms staggered
> provides enough responsiveness to the membership without turning
> individuals into short-term politicians instead of long-term
> technical leaders.
>
I agree that the composition of the boards is important to be staggered.

Since the boards have to live with the chairs, the terms of the chairs
MUST be shorter than that of the board itself.  That tilts the balance
of power to the board, rather than to the chair.

This is a lesson learned over many years of county commissions, school
boards, etc.  If the term of the chair is longer than the board, the
aggregate power of the chair increases.  (Another reason why scattered
Congressional term limits is a bad idea in a seniority system.)

[e-mail]