Hi Marco and list, Marco Hogewoning <marcoh@marcoh.net> writes:
Please wait a bit :) a) there might be others
Right. I suggest we wait at least for another week. (Anyone who thinks that this is too short speak up now.)
b) as much as we don’t like overhead, let’s come up with some procedure c) I need to have a chat with Shane on exactly how we are going to do this
I suggest this: We wait until Monday next week and see if anybody else volunteers. If there are, then I'd personally like a discussion among us volunteers about what team would make most sense. If we don't reach a result that way, we might have to come up with some sort of voting or such. Otherwise, I guess we're pretty much settled anyway.
I had several people including one of the candidates asking for a soft landing, where Shane and I gradually remove ourselves out of this, rather than just running off. So at a minimum we need to fix this in terms of timelines.
From somewhat similar personal experiences in the past, this is absolutely essential.
How about this: Once we've come up with the new team, we add the new team to the ipv6-wg-chair mailing list in an "advisory" role and eventually swap "active chair" and "advisory" roles between the old and new crowd. We can sort out the timing and sequence of swaps later on.
Also it is not a given that there must be three, I think 4 is too many and you definitely need 2 for redundancy. First question to the group: how many working group chairs do you want in the end?
I agree that four is too many; more often than not that leads to everyone expecting everyone else to either do things or take the blame for some screw-up, plus the extra hassle of getting ourselves coordinated (even real world scheduling problems are NP-hard...). But I'd rather not go with a team of two: We all have our daytime jobs, and as such there will be times when some of us are simply unavailable for several days. With only two of us I think this is just asking for trouble. And this isn't only about redundancy, but also about covering IPv6 from different perspectives. Dave has an ISP background, Jen sort of represents the contents side and as far as I am concerned, I am mostly all over the place but with some extra understanding for the eyeball and small/medium business side, among other things. That looks like a well-balanced team to me. And finally, from what I've seen of Jen and Dave so far, as far as I am concerned I think I can get along with them nicely to actually work as a team. Cheers, Benedikt -- Benedikt Stockebrand, Stepladder IT Training+Consulting Dipl.-Inform. http://www.stepladder-it.com/ Business Grade IPv6 --- Consulting, Training, Projects BIVBlog---Benedikt's IT Video Blog: http://www.stepladder-it.com/bivblog/