The elected bodies should use the same mechanism for chair selection

[hober]

There are many, seemingly arbitrary inconsistencies between the methods used to select the AB Chair(s) and to select the TAG Chair(s). Absent compelling rationale, these should be made consistent.

[fantasai]

They're different because the bodies wanted different things from the chair selection mechanisms. If the TAG wants to change theirs, we can take a change it?

[martinthomson]

I see fixes from multiple directions:

1. The AB chair might be selected from outside the AB. The Team chooses the chair with a 2/3 ratification vote from the AB.
2. The TAG chair has to be on the TAG. The TAG chooses a chair by consensus. Failure to select a chair leads to a Team choice.

The other aspects are all fine.

My preference is probably, in order:

1. A simple ballot.
2. Consensus, followed by a simple ballot.
3. Anything else.

I can see why the process has these differences. The AB doesn't have a Team appointment or similar mechanism that can be used to compensate for the elected members being all unwilling to serve as chair. And, in general, having the Team appoint a chair is potentially a way to avoid dysfunction of that sort. However, I would say that groups operating at this level should be able to self-organize.

I list a simple ballot as preferable, because consensus in these bodies tends to lead to inertia. People are unwilling to be seen to challenge established (and perhaps amply effective) leadership. Requiring a ballot at the start of a new term creates a way to reaffirm a choice without prejudice, or -- in the finest of democratic tradition -- overthrow established leadership in a very civil and respectful manner.

My experience with a similar process (the IAB) showed that this is often largely an affirmation of what consensus had already established informally, but I have observed a few "challenges" to that consensus. Challenging was generally encouraged. Challengers were regarded as a healthy sign that the body had multiple people willing to serve; it also created a safe space to discuss what the body expected from its leaders (I don't recall the TAG having that discussion, though I missed the first TAG offsite).

[cwilso]

With my individual-participant-of-the-AB hat on:

• The AB chair's selection by the Team is probably an artifact of history that isn't necessary to maintain. The AB chair should be someone who can work with the Team effectively, but I don't think that's as necessary as "the AB is happy with their chairing." Simple balloting by the AB itself would be fine. Having been through this several times, I would actually prefer 2 - consensus, followed by simple ballot. I was disappointed this was not simply a conversation in the AB followed by confirmation, tbh. I do agree with @martinthomson that groups at this level should be able to self-organize.
• the AB could, however, end up with no one willing to or proficient at chairing. The TAG could solve this problem by appointment; the AB chose to solve it by enabling the possibility of external chairing. In practice, this has not been used, but I think it's a good idea to do so (the TAG did use its appointment seats to ensure good chairs for years). There are two ways to solve this: have a shared process for selecting chairs that allows the groups to appoint outside Chairs, or enable appointments for the AB. I think the former would be easier to add, and infrequently used, so I'd probably suggest that.
• There is a small subtlety to the AB process that bears highlighting: the chair gets to select their co-chair. In practice, it's important to recognize that not every good chair would work well with every other chair. That could just fall into the category of "self-organize".

[fantasai]

Chairing discussions can feel confrontational, particularly in the case where some members might feel that a change in chairs is warranted; or if they have reservations about proposed chairs. For example, opening a discussion with something like "I propose this other person, does anyone object?", especially if either the proposer or the proposed candidate is the current chair, doesn't leave a lot of room for people uncomfortable with the proposal to say anything about it. Less confident or more reticent members definitely will not say anything, and it also doesn't exactly entice other people to volunteer.

So I think there is something useful about the Team's role as a buffer here in the AB procedures that we might want to preserve somehow, though I agree that if there is consensus in the body the Team shouldn't have the discretion to appoint someone else.

Bottom line, I think we can improve the Process here, but we need to be mindful of these things as well.

[cwilso]

I believe the Membership would be best served by using the same chair process across the elected bodies - or at least across the AB and the TAG. (The Board of Directors, of course, has this process defined in the bylaws. It's a consensus election - section IV.18.)

This would leave two options, with an optional addition:

1. A la the TAG's current situation, "Participants in the TAG choose by consensus their Chair or co-Chairs; in the absence of consensus, the Team appoints the Chair or co-Chairs of the TAG. The Chair or co-Chairs must be selected from the participants of the TAG." In short: elected body members are expected to figure out how to do this. If this is done consistently, yearly, it should be a reproducible routine that doesn't cause challenges.
2. A la the AB's current situation, "With the input of the AB, the Team appoints the Chair, who should choose a co-chair among the elected participants. The Chair(s) are subject to ratification by secret ballot by two thirds of the AB upon appointment." In practice, this has required a two-step procedure: essentially an election of the chair, followed by ratification of the chair and their chosen co-chair.

What has landed us in a less comfortable situation in the AB right now is that if the chosen co-chair - i.e., not the person originally chosen by the Team with input from the AB - steps down, the remaining (appointed) chair of the AB has to either solo-chair, or they have to start from scratch with the two-step routine from above. As the Team OR a majority of AB members could trigger a full selection at any time, this seems like overkill, when the original chair was chosen by that very body, less than a year before; they're only asking for re-ratification with a new co-chair.

My personal belief is that the "with input from" and "secret ballot" portions of this process have actually led to more discontent and damaged credibility than would have occurred if members had simply been transparent about their desires for chairing to begin with. Chair ratifications in the past have been followed by negative statements by members about the chairs chosen; those statements should have fed into EVERY member's ratification decision, not been an after-the-fact credibility question.

In the case of the AB and the current situation, I disagree with @fantasai's statement because I was always the "co-chair" - the one chosen by the Chair who was appointed, and tolerated in the ratification, not selected by my colleagues. I'm okay with that - but then we should have given the appointed chair the ability to replace me without starting over, as long as they were approving this. With that context, the Chair proposing someone else they would be comfortable co-chairing with for ratification by the rest of the group should not have been uncomfortable - it's literally the way it's done in the middle of the routine every year. (After the Team chooses their appointment, the Chair-appointee says "what do you all think about so-and-so co-chairing with me?" The AB doesn't get to weigh in, just object.)

So in short: I would suggest either a) leave things the way they are on the AB (in which case, the TAG should change for symmetry and getting all the good effects that process claims to have), but adding a caveat that if the non-appointed co-chair steps down, the appointed chair can re-select a co-chair with ratification, or b) switch to the TAG's process, which basically says "everyone be adults, choose a chair by consensus" which ensures people share how they really feel.

Edited to add: I should have said, as I am not going to re-run for the AB, and have no intention of running for the TAG, this procedure will not affect me personally in the future; however, I have gone through this process multiple times, and been disappointed in it each time as a group effort, and I believe it's needless complexity.

[frivoal]

the "co-chair" - the one chosen by the Chair who was appointed, and tolerated in the ratification, not selected by my colleagues

That's an unfortunate dynamic, and I'm sorry I hadn't realized earlier it could be perceived this way. I think the main goal of this pattern was to enable yet constrain the ability to have one of the co-chairs be a non-member of the AB. But introducing a difference in how real of a chair you are seems unintended and undesirable. If we keep the team intermediation, I'd be tempted to replace what we have by a proposal of one or two co-chairs as a single ticket, meant to complement or reinforce each other, rather than a "real" chosen chair and a tolerated "sub"-chair.

As for whether we need the intermediation of collect feedback / propose / secret ballot provided by the Team or not, I think that optimizes for different things.

• intermediation should enable picking a preferred set of chairs over an acceptable-yet-not-preferred one who would be the default choice, because it enables expressing that preference without having to be openly against anyone.
• a direct approach of talking through it without intermediation favors continuity: as long as the default choice of chairs remains at least somewhat acceptable, it is hard to push back an propose anything else, even if the alternative would actually have more support. But we do gain stability.

[fantasai]

This is my proposed replacement for the current Process, for both groups:

With the advice of the participants and the consent of the candidates, and abiding by the expressed consensus of the group if any, the Team appoints one or two Chair(s), at least one of whom must be a participant of the body. The Chair(s) are subject to ratification by secret ballot, requiring approval by two thirds of the participants.

This prevents the Team appointing contrary to the consensus of the group; but enables them to intermediate (subject to ratification) when there isn't one. It allows applying some constraints to Team mediation without dictating the candidates they must choose. It keeps the two co-chairs on an even level (which I strongly prefer also), while also requiring them to agree to work together (which was the original motivation for this weird setup). And it enables the use of a balloting process, if the group decides to set one up.

Possible ways this could run:

• The chairs confront the group and propose their preferred set of chairs and ask for objections. The Team appoints accordingly. (This is not my preferred procedure, but it's possible. I would suggest discouraging this kind of thing in /Guide.)
• The group decides on a balloting process, and runs it, and then confirms the result as their consensus position. The Team appoints accordingly.
• The Team asks everyone to note if they would be willing to serve if the rest of the group elected them, participants forward their nuanced thoughts about the candidates to the Team, and the Team considers their input and appoints accordingly.
• The Team notes that none of the participants are interested in chairing and suggests an external chair. The participants discuss this among themselves and resolve to accept the suggestion (or a different suggestion). The Team appoints accordingly.

I don't want to require anything too strict in the Process at this point because I think we need some experimentation. But I agree the AB selection, at least, is weird and needs fixing.