Re: [802SEC] Term limits
Mike -
Sounds like a very reasonable suggestion to me.
In answer to your question, I believe the current rules are clear on this
point:
"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."
In other words, Chair of 802.<N, where N not equal to 17> would be OK, but
after 8 years as Chair of 802.17 you would not be allowed to be re-elected
even after a gap (while your head injury recovered).
However, this whole discussion leads me to ask another question. Why the
assumption that this supposed problem only applies to officers of WGs (and
TAGs...etc) and not to appointed positions on the SEC? If the arguments
about the power of the incumbent, and the need to plan a succession, are in
any way valid, then they apply just as much to appointed positions on the
SEC as they do to elected positions. I would like to see the same rule
applied to all SEC appointments (or to none). In the case of an appointed
position, this would mean a requirement that >= 75% of the SEC confirm the
appointment.
Regards,
Tony
At 16:29 15/02/2005, Mike Takefman wrote:
>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.
Regards,
Tony
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.