See here for thr NY Times coverage of this story, and see here for coverage on a leading skeptic blog site.
In general I'm in support of the need for the changes. Basically, the IPPC has rather lost its way in terms of being objective and transparent. It is very hard for those who views differ to the AGW hypothesis to get themselves heard and noted as part of the IPCC process. In fact the current process pretty much guarantees that dissenting voices are not heard until well after the report has been finalized and published. Given the seriousness of what the IPCC undertake this is reason enough to cast doubt across the organization.
I'm also in support of 'rotating out' senior IPCC leads after each assessment, to quote:
The IPCC should elect an Executive Director to lead the Secretariat and handle day-to-day operations of the organization. The term of this senior scientist should be limited to the time frame of one assessment."
Basically this ensures that any bias in the leadership is prevented from easily continuing from one assessment to another - although this in itself does not stop a manifest bias if picking from the same 'pool' of leadership over time.