Michael Champion

There has to be a way to hold the team accountable for bad decisions, e.g. chair selection. Of course we hope these cases are rare, and yes people will be...

Hmm, is the Process Document the right place for this kind of fundamental guidance that is currently in the prerogative of the Director? The Process could get awfully long and...

I think I've made this point before, maybe in another thread. This language is a legacy of the "waterfall" era when the accepted work mode was to collaborate on an...

Thanks for the link to the breakout session. There seems to have been at least 3 different views expressed about what it should take to get to Recommendation: 1. The...

So you are comfortable replacing the Director's expert, principled strategic guidance with a political process? When I was an AC Rep, I was once told by the team that I...

@dwsinger I agree with the "members responsibility" point. But the FO process is an anachronism unless there is some Director (Directorate, Technical Director, whatever) to appeal to. The Council punted...

The current process creates a MASSIVE bias in favor of approving charters. It takes zero thought and effort to vote yes (and not be publicly accountable if the charter creates...

Simply allowing AB and TAG members to vote on AC ballots raises the usual concerns about one member with successful AB and/or TAG candidates effectively getting multiple votes in the...

It would be helpful to be clear on what the problem is that we're trying to solve. I think it's something like "Groups may be chartered to produce specs that...

@frivoal wrote: > For AB feedback, it might be along the lines of "the procedures proposed for this Working Group seem at odds (or in clear violation of) the Process",...