Re: Resigning as chair, choosing a chair

so 9. 12. 2023 v 11:42 odesílatel Sebastian Hellmann <
hellmann@informatik.uni-leipzig.de> napsal:

> Hi all,
>
> I have chaired some CG's before and I think that there is no given process
> to elect the chair as CG's are informal. I found the text below in the CG
> Charter template (https://w3c.github.io/cg-charter/CGCharter.html).
>
> whatever means they prefer
>
> I would prefer that we close this issue and confirm Jacopo as chair. Main
> reason is that he is doing a good job & no objections were uttered &
> process was transparently communicated on the mailing list.
>
> So IMHO, we can make it official at 23:59:59.999 of Dec 10th, UTC time
> without further action. I logged into https://www.w3.org/community/webid/
> and there is nothing to be done from participant side.
>
+1

Thank you to Jacopo for helping the group out.  The comments towards you
were indeed uncharitable.  The RFC system is new to most of us, but we seem
to be making progress, so let's give it a try, and see where we end up.

Consider spreading the load by appointing a second editor or co-chair, and
I think Sebastian has hinted he may have some cycles for that.

We've already agreed on a lazy consensus.  So 2 ACK's and 0 NACK's should
be enough.  If someone wants to involve the CG Development Lead, we'll
cross that bridge when we come to it.  But I doubt it would be productive.

>
> -- Sebastian
>
>
>
> Chair Selection
>
> Participants in this group choose their Chair(s) and can replace their
> Chair(s) at any time using whatever means they prefer. However, if 5
> participants, no two from the same organisation, call for an election, the
> group must use the following process to replace any current Chair(s) with a
> new Chair, consulting the Community Development Lead on election operations
> (e.g., voting infrastructure and using RFC 2777
> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2777>).
>
> ...
>
> Participants dissatisfied with the outcome of an election may ask the
> Community Development Lead to intervene. The Community Development Lead,
> after evaluating the election, may take any action including no action.
>
>
>
> On 12/9/23 11:14, Jacopo Scazzosi wrote:
>
> Hello Sarven!
>
>
> What I've raised in https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webid/2023Nov/0146.html was a matter of having some sense of a process, and if anything but to have things on public record. It is a call for clarity, not objection.
>
> That is how I have interpreted it, too, and even more so in light of Kingsley’s request, which was also echoed by a couple others privately. Not that I would have had any issue whatsoever had it been an objection. As I’ve stated multiple times, I’m happy to chair as long as the group is happy to have me.
>
>
> The response shouldn't be, "I don't know how this happened but I'd like to thank the academy, and here is how I want everyone to speak, and I'm now editor of this..."
>
> Although I understand this is meant in jest, at least in part, I also feel it is a little uncharitable. I am experimenting with unorthodox approaches, that’s for sure, but I’ve been very very careful in being as transparent and as open to feedback as I can.
>
>
> I can see your enthusiasm and good intentions, and if this is the path you choose, I wish you luck and patience. It can be both exhausting and exhilarating.
>
> I very much appreciate the honest words encouragement and I am happy that I appear to be coming across as, at least, good intentioned. I can build on that :)
>
>
>
>
>