[Internal-cg] Results of chair structure poll
pwilson at apnic.net
Thu Jul 31 22:05:39 UTC 2014
Thanks Alissa, for your very considered approach.
I agree with your proposal.
On 1 Aug 2014, at 7:32 am, Joseph Alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com> wrote:
> Ok as well.
> Sent from my iPad
> On Jul 31, 2014, at 5:20 PM, Hartmut Richard Glaser <glaser at cgi.br> wrote:
>> I am OK with one chair and two vice chairs (1+2).
>> On 31/07/14 17:59, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>>> I have reviewed the results of the chair poll <http://tinyurl.com/ptrr2m6>
>>> and wanted to summarize where I think we are. Twenty-one ICG participants
>>> responded to the poll (out of 30).*
>>> There were four choices for people to provide feedback about in the poll:
>>> One chair with one alternate (“1+1”)
>>> Two co-chairs (“2”)
>>> One chair with two alternates (“1+2”)
>>> Three co-chairs (“3”)
>>> There was no clear consensus among respondents about their preference
>>> among the above choices — in fact responses were fairly evenly split among
>>> all four choices. Ten people preferred the options that would yield two
>>> chairs (1+1 or 2); 11 people preferred options that would yield three
>>> chairs (1+2 or 3). The option preferred by the greatest number of
>>> respondents was (3), with seven responses in favor, compared to five for
>>> (1+1), five for (2), and four for (1+2).
>>> The rationales given for people’s choices related primarily to
>>> organizational concerns (i.e., which structure will make it easiest to
>>> share the workload, determine consensus, organize amongst the chairs
>>> themselves), diversity/balance of many sorts among the chairs, and
>>> political aspects. These rationales were argued in different directions,
>>> for and against the different options — again no consensus that I could
>>> The poll also asked about which options people can’t live with. Five
>>> respondents said they could not live with (3), four said they could not
>>> live with (2), and each of the other options had two respondents each.
>>> Most respondents could live with all four options.
>>> So, it’s not obvious what to do here. Here is my suggestion, in the spirit
>>> of compromise:
>>> We go with one chair and two vice chairs (1+2) where the work is expected
>>> to be divided among all three people. This can mitigate some of the
>>> organizational concerns (since there will be one chair to be the backstop
>>> responsible for getting things done if necessary) while providing three
>>> slots’ worth of opportunity for diversity of different flavors. More
>>> people preferred options that would yield three chairs, so this fits that
>>> bill, and among the two options for that, (1+2) was the less controversial
>>> (most everyone can live with it).
>>> My hope is that people can accept this compromise in the interest of
>>> getting on with the real work at hand -- if you absolutely cannot live
>>> with this, please say so by Aug 5 at 20:00 UTC (if you're ok with it,
>>> hearing that would be helpful too). Assuming people can accept this
>>> approach, I’d like to ask Joe to figure out a process for conducting an
>>> email vote or some such to get people appointed to these roles next week.
>>> * One member of the community also responded.
>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>> Internal-cg at icann.org
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at icann.org
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
More information about the Internal-cg