Currently there isn't any suggestion for how teams should pick their representative other than "figure it out on your own", which can lead to challenges for teams to pick a process that is efficient and produces good results. I would suggest considering writing down a suggested process for top-level teams to refer to as a guide for having a process that we think will be smooth and effective. But I think we don't necessarily need to require any particular process to be used (though I don't know).
Similar to this is suggestions on how to deal with alternates. Is it useful for teams to have a standing alternate? Or is it best to pick alternates on an as-needed basis? Should you use the same process for picking an alternate as a regular member.
Similarly, how can the selection process be aware of bias in Council representative selection, including status-quo bias towards existing Rust leaders or people similar to them?
Currently there isn't any suggestion for how teams should pick their representative other than "figure it out on your own", which can lead to challenges for teams to pick a process that is efficient and produces good results. I would suggest considering writing down a suggested process for top-level teams to refer to as a guide for having a process that we think will be smooth and effective. But I think we don't necessarily need to require any particular process to be used (though I don't know).
Similar to this is suggestions on how to deal with alternates. Is it useful for teams to have a standing alternate? Or is it best to pick alternates on an as-needed basis? Should you use the same process for picking an alternate as a regular member.
Similarly, how can the selection process be aware of bias in Council representative selection, including status-quo bias towards existing Rust leaders or people similar to them?