On 3/30/2020 4:47 PM, Wes Hardaker wrote:
Michael StJohns <mstjohns@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Given that you were part of the outgoing IAB as well as the incoming
one, can you give us some insight as to why that didn't happen
already?
I'm afraid that conversation was in executive session, and it would not
be prudent of my to share any discussions related to the final decision.
*sigh* Let me try this again. Per community discussion and announced
intent the IAB should have come back with 2 or 3 chairs, or it should
have re-opened the call for chairs. Neither of these happened. What
caused that IAB to fail to follow the rules - again?
Personally, I'm actually happy that we only appointed one chair, but
probably not for the reason you think: this way, with the large turn
over of IAB members, it turns out that the incoming IAB members will
have a voice in potentially selecting a second chair.
I don't mean to pick on you, but this seems to be retconning [1] what
actually happened. If this was the intent of the IAB, then it should
have been announced and action taken transparently.
Seriously, if this is a mistake, say "oops", apologize and explain what
actions are being taken to fix the problem.
Mike
[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=retcon
