Re: [802SEC] Term limits
Tony,
I agree that the current rules are clear on this point (8
years and you are done). However, the suggestion that Bob makes
allows a path for a chair to have his/her term extended (without
limit (until death presumably)) if they never take a break from
the chairs role. This language does not allow a path to an
extended term if they take a break after the 8 year mark.
From where I sit, it seems to me that restricting the 2nd path
to limit the term is arbitrary and the language should be written
to allow it.
Either:
- we don't have a term limit;
- we have a term limit;
- we have a term limit with a check allowing us to ignore the term limit;
I think it is definitely worth discussing similar confidence votes
for appointed positions on the EC beyond a reasonable term.
mike
Tony Jeffree wrote:
> 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
--
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.