Thanks again to Meredith for an interesting agenda this morning.
The end though was slightly rushed and we ran quite late so it is good that that the discussion can continue on the list. We obviously did not have the time this topic required during the session. I think we now need two discussions: one about the WG itself and one about the co-chairs. They are linked. But the one about the WG is and will be ongoing. I will focus here on the co-chairs and in particular the process. I still think though that we should keep with published the process. This is where I think we are: * the chair requests candidates. Done. * there is a period of about two weeks when names can be put forward. On-going? I think though we are coming towards the end of that period. I think we ought to be a little bit flexible on when that period actually comes to and end given how the process kicked-off. But I presume that it will end this weekend? ** the chair then announces the final list of candidates. ** there is a another period of about two weeks when the WG can have a conversation about particular requirements and with the candidates. ** the chair announces the consensus. I see no need to rush this any faster. Do people agree? I would hope though that in the future we might stretch the time-scales a little - take the published time-lines as an indicative baseline rather than binding formal constraint - and take a more relaxed approach. Gordon
