Hi Julf,
> On 11 Jul 2016, at 22:58, Johan Helsingius <[email protected]> wrote: > >> However, based on his contributions on the mailing list, I would >> like Julf to be a co-chair. I think a co-chair should be active, >> present. > > I appreciate the expressions of support from both you and Nick, > but at the same time I agree that it is up to the current chair(s) > to decide, and I do feel that it is important the co-chairs are > people the current chair(s) feel happy to work with. I agree it is up to the chair(s) to decide, i.e. to ‘declare a decision, based on mailing list discussion’. Part of this is the expression by ‘WG members’ of ‘their approval or otherwise of the presented candidates’. Which is what Gordon and Nick did, in line with the formal chair selection process. I too think it is important, as these are volunteer roles, that the current chair(s) personally will ‘feel happy to work with’ the new co-chairs. I trust the existing chair(s) will be transparant when this consideration influences a personal preference. In my case I have to state my ‘approval’ is based not only on visible presence and participation of candidates, but also on (not) knowing them personally and (not) having a clear opinion on their capabilities to add value as co-chairs and lead the WG into the future. Anyway, this is why I want to endorse your candidacy. Best, -Bastiaan
