Re: [802SEC] Term limits
Colleagues,
I've read the traffic on this particular issue and I figured I would
put my $0.016 (2 cents canadian).
In terms of gerrymandering or otherwise "buying" an election, we have
no defense against this (or rather none that we seem to be willing
to try and have supported by IEEE). So a term limit rule just means
that you get a new face and the same old chair. So I don't see this as
a strong argument for term limits. It is perhaps a strong argument for
other things.
In terms of having new blood in management positions, I think it is
incumbent on the chair to be grooming potential replacements for
any number of reasons, the proverbial bus being one of them. But I think
we can trust the WG to decide when its time for the chair to retire
by holding a confidence vote as Bob suggests below in 4).
I would suggest however, that such a vote should be held at the november
plenary session allowing suitable candidates to step forward in time
for a March election. Or it could be held via email ballot starting
after the November plenary, thus allowing the complete membership to
be part of the decision process. Although then we get into the SA rules
for email ballots and the required majority / return rates. (But it
is worth discussing).
Finally, does the 8 year rule ever reset? For example, suppose I am
chair of .17 for >= 8 years and step down. Some years later I decide
that I really want to be chair again (clearly I've sustained a head
injury). As currently written, I would have to get the appropriate
motion made and passed, and then I could stand for election. Do
we want to worry about this possibility?
mike
Grow, Bob wrote:
> Colleagues:
>
> We discussed possible changes on term limits at a prior EC meeting,
> though I doubt that all requirements of 7.1.6.1 were fulfilled. Out of
> fairness to all, if we are going to change this, it should be resolved
> by November 2005 at the latest.
>
> I want to try to determine the preferences of the EC on this matter
> before advocating any specific change in March.
>
> At present, the specific text within 7.2.2 reads:
>
> "An individual who has served as Chair or Vice Chair of a given Working
> Group for a total of more than eight years in that office may not be
> elected to that office again."
>
> One common rationale would be the desire to retain the services of a
> willing and capable officer rather than that officer being arbitrarily
> forced out. There is less than universal agreement on what approach to
> take for this, but I remember four clear alternatives:
>
> 1. Leave term limits as is.
>
> Rationale: Term limits do open up leadership opportunities for people.
> It is too difficult to overcome the power/influence of incumbency
> without term limits.
>
> 2. Strike the entire paragraph.
>
> Rationale: The rules allow replacement of WG officers at any plenary
> meeting (7.2.2). Working Groups in the past would have liked to have
> kept a term-limited Chair.
>
> 3. Change to read: "An individual who has served as Chair of a given
> Working Group for a total of more than eight years in that office may
> not be elected to that office again."
>
> Rationale: Term limiting the Chair only still opens up leadership
> opportunities at the top, allowing either a Vice Chair to move up or
> someone new to take the Chair position. A Vice Chair may with to
> continue in his/her role rather than take the Chair position. WGs with
> multiple Vice Chairs arbitrarily limit those people by term limits even
> though they may be changing responsibilities within the WG (Moving from
> 2nd Vice Chair to 1st Vice Chair).
>
> 4. Change to read: "An individual who has served as Chair or Vice
> Chair of a given Working Group for a total of more than eight years in
> that office may only be eligible for election to that office again as
> the result of a motion passed by 75% of the voting members present."
>
> Rationale: Just as we currently grant the WG the ability to elect a new
> Chair at any plenary session by 75% vote, the WG should have similar
> latitude to retain a Chair independent of term limits.
>
> My preferences lean toward options 4 or 3. (Just to be clear, I find it
> inconceivable that I personally will ever test the term limits.)
>
> Comments and preferences appreciated.
>
> --Bob Grow
> ---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email
> reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
--
Michael Takefman tak@cisco.com
Distinguished Engineer, Cisco Systems
Chair IEEE 802.17 Stds WG
3000 Innovation Dr, Ottawa, Canada, K2K 3E8
voice: 613-254-3399 cell:613-220-6991
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.