--On Sunday, August 10, 2014 19:37 -0800 Melinda Shore
<melinda.shore@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 2) I would object rather strenuously to this being published
> as a BCP, anyway. I am unclear what problem it solves -
> certainly, if there's an issue with underperforming chairs
> that really needs to be dealt with head-on rather than
> delegating to another individual (who may or may not perform).
> I continue to think that if you're in a situation in which you
> feel you cannot fire a chair, add another one rather than
> adding someone who's neither fish nor fowl, not really a chair
> but kind of sort- of one, anyway.
Agree strongly but let me turn the above around:
While informal guidance is probably always a good idea (as long
as getting it together doesn't suck energy out of useful
technical work), the secretary role needs formal definition and
procedures only if it is really a Junior Chair. If we don't
want Junior Chairs (and I agree with Melinda and the draft that
we don't), then the job description is best kept as informal and
flexible as possible.
In particular, WG Secretary roles have been used in the past for
leadership development. Doing that well requires a lot of
flexibility. Creating an explicit Apprentice Chair role (even
if named something else) would probably undesirable for several
reasons but a document that restricts the ability for Chair(s)
to assign some of their responsibilities to a Secretary who
works under reasonably close supervision would impede that
possibility and, if the document were a BCP, make it subject to
appeal.
john