Chris Wilson

Indeed. Particularly for initial group charters, I think it helps engender confidence to know who the chair(s) are intended to be. Yes, the Team could theoretically change them at any...

It would certainly be possible to do that, and personally I would prefer a process for changing chairs at any point that required explicit AC approval - but it would...

But then how is that any different than simply putting that proposal in the charter?

To keep this focused down on the original issue I reported, the situation as it is today as I interpret the Process: - The Team appoints Chairs. Those appointments do...

I'm still unclear as to why that is preferable. The Process effectively enables Members to review who the Chairs are - because a Member can formally object to the team...

I don't have a strong position on the main topic - "should we stagger the appointed election terms". Martin's points are all good ones, although I would say (having re-joined...

What I was describing was less about being _viewed_ as an outsider and more "not able to participate in the getting-set-up period that the rest of the group goes through"....

Unless you restricted the choice of who could be chair, how could you prevent that?

Perhaps I misunderstood, @LeaVerou . Chairs can be anyone on the TAG; the Team+TAG can select any member, or members, to be chairs each year. If they select two TAG...

Well, then, I suppose it's good the current TAG chairs are now on staggered terms (if the TAG selects the same chairs, etc.)