Clarify timing of TAG and AB chair selection

The Revising W3C Process CG just discussed Clarify chair selection timing, and agreed to the following:

RESOLVED: Merge 675

The full IRC log of that discussion

<fantasai> Subtopic: Clarify chair selection timing
<fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/675
<fantasai> florian: TAG chair was picked by Director, now picked by Team
<fantasai> florian: AB chair also evolved as well
<fantasai> florian: In both cases, we were fuzzy about timing of when that happens
<fantasai> ... and differences weren't intentional
<fantasai> ... AB text was a bit more precise
<cwilso> q+ to ask a question I think I know the answer to, but want to confirm
<fantasai> ... so this PR makes it clear when it happens and attempts to use the same timing
<fantasai> s/florian: AB/... AB/
<fantasai> florian: Timing is "start of term", which is a bit fuzzy (and intentionally so)
<fantasai> ... to set up expectation that you should revisit this question routinely
<fantasai> florian: also, we included provision that if majority of group requests a change of chair, even at other times it needs to be considered
<fantasai> florian: Third point is that if a minority asks, it's a "may" revisit
<fantasai> ... e.g. if one chair steps down, and might need to appoint a replacement
<fantasai> ... or have a loud minority that believes it is a problematic situation
<fantasai> ... in this case aren't *required* to revisit the quesiton, but you may
<fantasai> florian: but you are required, at start of term, and if majority requests it, to revisit quesiton of chair
<plh> ack cw
<Zakim> cwilso, you wanted to ask a question I think I know the answer to, but want to confirm
<fantasai> cwilso: I wanted to make sure I understand the subtleties the same way
<fantasai> ... This is the Team or the current chairs may, at any time, run this request
<fantasai> ... the Team could say, "we want you to re-choose chairs"
<fantasai> ... could be in response to minority of participants, in response to chair stepping down, but doesn't need to be either
<fantasai> ... So if I step down as chair, they aren't requried to re-run the process
<fantasai> ... but if majority requests, it must be re-run
<plh> q+
<fantasai> ... so for example if I step down, Tzviya can just keep going
<fantasai> ... but if she wants she can re-run
<fantasai> florian: and if majority of group says, no that's not okay, have to re-run
<plh> ack plh
<fantasai> plh: Seems odd to have minority to be an example
<weiler> regrets+
<fantasai> ... if a majority is fine with it
<fantasai> ... why re-run
<fantasai> cwilso: It's not that the majority is against it, it's that the majority didn't request it.
<fantasai> ... I get your point, but using that minority as an example says, if someone really vocally really doesn't like me as co-chair as AB, they can say that and the Team or chairs can decide to re-run this process
<fantasai> plh: I imagine the Team to be careful in deciding to do that
<fantasai> florian: Yes, and that's why it's not SHOULD
<fantasai> s/SHOULD/SHOULD, but MAY/
<fantasai> plh: Proposal to merge 675
<fantasai> github: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/675
<fantasai> RESOLVED: Merge 675

w3c / process

Clarify timing of TAG and AB chair selection #675