On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> wrote:

In my view the thing now is to look forwards rather than backwards. The outcome of those earlier discussions addresses the basic problem. There will soon be clear and transparent mechanisms for each WG to select its Chairs. I doubt it matters much how we got to that destination or why it took so long. The point is we're there. At last!

Looking forward, it seems obvious to me that some work should be done to ensure a reasonable standardization of these mechanisms, so that e.g. if I were to take part in another WG, I'd instantly know how these procedures worked.

It's difficult enough to be a fresh WG participant without having to expend extra time on reading and understanding different procedures.

And I suppose this is your fear, that having too detailed procedures could be demotivating to WG participants.

It would be less potentially demotivating with a concise, common procedure set.

I'm not saying that it is demotivating, and I still think that the general idea of how to handle governance is sufficiently sound to proceed with.

--
Jan