Hi, On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 10:57:08AM +0200, Filiz Yilmaz wrote:
Can you explain your thoughts in this context and the reason for your choice of consensus over any other selection process which could be anonymous for those doing the selection?
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. 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"). Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279