On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 11:07 AM, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
Well, the assumption is that we're not going to have an in-rush of volunteers, so in many cases it will be "one of the existing chairs is asking for re-affirmation and the WG is happy" or "one of the existing chairs is stepping down, and the WG is fine with the single volunteer for replacement".
We do not want to spend large amounts of precious WG time on voting with paper ballots, counting, etc. - which could easily take half an hour or more.
This is entirely reasonable.
So, we go for "the participants agree on a candidate, in whatever form this will be expressed (humming, show of hands, withdrawal of the other candidates, ...)", and if that turns out to be non-working, we'll have to come up with a formal tie breaking mechanism by the next meeting.
(This actually was one of the reasons why the WG chair collective could not agree on a common policy. Half of us wanted something lightweight and not time consuming, while the other half wanted "something more formal").
It's a bit puzzling, though, that there couldn't be a multi-tiered process, e.g.: 1. If there is only one candidate, and no controversy, take the model you're proposing. 2. If there are two candidates, hold an election with ballots and whatnot. 3. If there are three or more candidates, go Condorcet all the way, baby! -- Jan