I have reviewed the results of the chair poll <http://tinyurl.com/ptrr2m6> and wanted to summarize where I think we are. Twenty-one ICG participants responded to the poll (out of 30).* There were four choices for people to provide feedback about in the poll: One chair with one alternate (“1+1”) Two co-chairs (“2”) One chair with two alternates (“1+2”) Three co-chairs (“3”) There was no clear consensus among respondents about their preference among the above choices — in fact responses were fairly evenly split among all four choices. Ten people preferred the options that would yield two chairs (1+1 or 2); 11 people preferred options that would yield three chairs (1+2 or 3). The option preferred by the greatest number of respondents was (3), with seven responses in favor, compared to five for (1+1), five for (2), and four for (1+2). The rationales given for people’s choices related primarily to organizational concerns (i.e., which structure will make it easiest to share the workload, determine consensus, organize amongst the chairs themselves), diversity/balance of many sorts among the chairs, and political aspects. These rationales were argued in different directions, for and against the different options — again no consensus that I could see. The poll also asked about which options people can’t live with. Five respondents said they could not live with (3), four said they could not live with (2), and each of the other options had two respondents each. Most respondents could live with all four options. So, it’s not obvious what to do here. Here is my suggestion, in the spirit of compromise: We go with one chair and two vice chairs (1+2) where the work is expected to be divided among all three people. This can mitigate some of the organizational concerns (since there will be one chair to be the backstop responsible for getting things done if necessary) while providing three slots’ worth of opportunity for diversity of different flavors. More people preferred options that would yield three chairs, so this fits that bill, and among the two options for that, (1+2) was the less controversial (most everyone can live with it). My hope is that people can accept this compromise in the interest of getting on with the real work at hand -- if you absolutely cannot live with this, please say so by Aug 5 at 20:00 UTC (if you're ok with it, hearing that would be helpful too). Assuming people can accept this approach, I’d like to ask Joe to figure out a process for conducting an email vote or some such to get people appointed to these roles next week. Alissa * One member of the community also responded.