TAG Appointment Process Shortcomings

(I've already shared feedback along these lines with the Team.)

The obvious and stated purpose of TAG appointments is to address the innate drawbacks of an election process as far as diversity goes. It does not matter what aspect of diversity is considered, elections cannot produce multiple selections in a way that ensures that the set of selections maintains an appropriate amount of diversity. For instance, this year we have a troubling lack of women (though this is not the fault of the electors).

Having the Team be responsible for appointments on the same timeline as elections is a very poor design for several reasons.

There is insufficient time between the time that the election terminates and when the Team needs to make a decision. From my experience with the IETF NomCom, finding a substantive enough selection of people who are willing to serve in a position like this takes time, then it takes time to gather the information necessary to make a good decision. In this case, it will also take time to make a decision, as decisions need to be ratified by a supermajority of both the TAG and the AB[^1].

[^1]: A side note: I do not think that the AB has a role in making this particular decision. A more typical process is for the body itself to manage diversity appointments. If the goal is to ensure that the Team remains accountable to the membership for their choices, then put potential appointments up for comment and maybe objections (formal or otherwise) from the membership. I will open a separate issue to track this.

Six weeks is very much inadequate for this purpose, especially considering that this is over a holiday period in many parts of the world. I'm personally leaving on vacation soon and will not return before the end of the nomination period. I am sure that you will find it extraordinarily difficult to find good people.

As far as I can see, there is no formal reason for the elections to run so late in the term. You might say that if more time is needed, then the Team could schedule the election earlier so that there is more time for appointments.

I would argue instead that having elections conclude close to the time that a term starts is a good goal. Extending the period between election and term start makes it more likely that the election results become irrelevant, as those elected are more likely to have job changes or other life events that invalidate the results. The gap between election and term start should only allow enough time to manage the necessary logistical functions and for those elected to transition work as needed. Six weeks is about right for this purpose, four would be better, but that timing doesn't work. Note also that this settling period would not be available to appointees no matter how long that period is for elected members.

The other reason that this process is not ideal is that it takes very little account of what the TAG - the group to which the appointment is being made - needs. Though the new TAG votes on any decision, I would argue that consultation with the TAG is paramount before the appointment process starts. For new TAG members like myself, I have very little information about my soon-to-be colleagues and their strengths. I am not confident of being able to make an informed decision if an appointment is put to the vote.

My suggestion therefore is this:

1. Start the appointment process a short period after the new TAG is seated.
2. Consult the TAG about what you think their needs are and be guided by what they have to say about the gaps that need to be addressed.
3. Run the appointment process on a schedule that ensures that the Team are able to find good candidates.
4. Have the terms for appointments staggered relative to elected appointments. I would say that a reasonable timeline for the entire process would be at least three months, so that would have appointed members join the TAG around May or June.

Start by reviewing the existing TAG appointment process and the four changes proposed in this issue: timing, TAG consultation, candidate selection time, and staggered terms. Done would require an agreed and updated process, including resolution of the concerns about ratification and appointment timing.