Re: [802SEC] Term limits
I agree with Buzz ... I see the term limit provision as a solution to a
non-existent "problem."
I think the simplest, cleanest way to deal with this issue would be to
simply remove the term limit provision.
(Note that I am a LONG way from facing it and *hope* to be happily retired
by the time it could affect me personally.)
Carl
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of
> Rigsbee, Everett O
> Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 12:46 PM
> To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] Term limits
>
> Colleagues, One more thought to consider in our drawn-out
> discussion is: "Are we laboring here to solve a problem
> which does not exist ???" The creation of our original rule
> on term limits was at best speculative because there has
> never been an acknowledged case of incumbent domination.
> I've been on the SEC for over 20 years now and to my
> knowledge in all that time we have not seen an instance of
> the problem that this rule would protect against, although I
> believe we have seen a couple of cases where a capable and
> popular chair was forced to withdraw just because of the
> artificial limit. So based on this observation, perhaps the
> wisest course is to just remove the rule until such time as
> we can document some non-speculative justification for having it.
>
> This is certainly the easiest adjustment to make and I
> suspect it may also be the most popular for all of us.
>
> Thanx, Buzz
> Dr. Everett O. (Buzz) Rigsbee
> Boeing - SSG
> PO Box 3707, M/S: 7M-FM
> Seattle, WA 98124-2207
> (425) 865-2443 Fx: (425) 865-6721
> Cell: (425) 417-1022
> everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Grow, Bob [mailto:bob.grow@INTEL.COM]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 7:53 PM
> To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] Term limits
>
>
> Colleagues:
>
> Since there has been some discussion (thank you all), I'll
> respond to the comments (also acting as a summary).
>
> Ajay -- I'm not sure of your point on the "overhanging
> election". Is your problem with the WG deciding in advance
> to allow an otherwise term limited Chair to run again, or was
> it you basically agreeing that any rules change should be
> completed in consultation with our WG/TAGs well before the
> March 2006 elections loom over us?
>
> I did consult 802.3 at a past meeting and there was some
> support for term limits, but more sentiment that forcing
> someone they are happy with out of office is not good.
> (During this discussion as part of full disclosure, I did
> note that the 802.3 Vice Chair will be term limited in March
> 2006.) Option #4 came from the floor during that discussion
> (someone with experience in another standards group having a
> supermajority excemption). I think I did ask WG Chairs to
> consider consulting their groups when we discussed this
> during the EC meeting, so either my memory or that of other
> EC members has failed if similar consultation hasn't occured.
>
> I personally think it prudent to involve my WG before voting
> on this type of rule change. (I also did it before starting
> to advocate for a TBD change.) It will appear to some of our
> members that we may have a conflict of interest when we vote
> on such a rules change. (For some it may be a real conflict
> of interest, for others only a perceived conflict of
> interest.) I personally plan to take a WG vote if a rules
> change on this progresses before I cast a final vote of approval.
>
>
> Pat -- I agree with you that whatever we do, hybernating WGs
> should not have their Chairs' term limited.
>
>
> Tony, John, Mike -- Trust people familiar with a parlimentary
> systems to support a "vote of no confidence" approach. The
> current rule doesn't have the elgegance of a no confidence
> vote. Instead the current rule pragmatically requires
> something more akin to a coup d'etat, something more familiar
> to those of us schooled on the "virutes" of the American
> revolution. Being one of those (and one that also took
> comparitive government) I still find some advantage to simply
> throwing the bum out at the earliest opportunity. Is your
> preference to add no confidence or replace the current provision?
>
> Steve, Tony -- My significant slipup on not thinking about
> TAG Chairs Steve, but they aren't covered by the term limit
> subclause. So in the spirit of egalitarianism advocated by
> Tony, any limit and or exemption from limits should apply
> equally and rationally should extend to TAGs and other EC
> posisions. This one gets quite convoluted in the rules
> though, I'll have to think about it. To satisfy those in
> support of no limit if hybernating WG, perhaps make it so any
> limit/exemption remaining applies to all voting EC positions.
>
> Tony -- The "at least" wordsmithing suggestion to #4 noted
> though I prefer "75% majority vote" which doesn't imply the
> exact 75% per RROR.
>
> Mike -- I had thought about specifying that the vote to
> exempt from term limits occur at the prior plenary meeting.
> It works for normal elections and would also allow one
> returning from hiatus to similarly seek re-election through
> term limit exemption. But, I haven't figured out how to make
> it work if you "throw the bum out" per the immediate election
> rule and want to go back to the tried and true former chair
> (unless for this specific case the exception to term limits
> rule was allowed also to be immediate). Getting pretty
> complicated. Do we also have reason to be concerned about
> the case where the Chair announces his/her retirement in
> November but before March gets convinced that the best
> alternative is to re-up?
>
> All -- I'll take another shot at #4 text and see if I can fix
> the appealing "tweaks" above. It might create a clearer
> differentiation between removing the text per #2 and a fairly
> verbose rewriting of #4 (possibly changing other sections).
> Proposing my alternative #2 is easy, we'll see what I can
> come up with on a tweaked #4.
>
> --Bob
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ajay Rajkumar [mailto:ajayrajkumar@lucent.com]
> Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 3:57 PM
> To: Grow, Bob
> Cc: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] Term limits
>
> Even though last several emails on this subject seem to
> indicate that option #4 has a lot of appeal, let me offer
> another view.
>
> As option #1 rationale stated "It is too difficult to
> overcome the power/influence of incumbency without term
> limits", option #4 still does not address this.
>
> Since option #4 would be tested at the time a
> Chair/Vice-Chair is up for re-election, the same
> "power/influence of incumbency" would be in action.
>
> One way to address that may be to get some feedback from the
> WGs now without the influence of an overhanging election of a
> Chair/Vice-Chair.
>
> -ajay
>
> On 2/11/2005 6:36 PM, 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.
>
> ----------
> This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email
> reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
>
> ----------
> This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email
> reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
>
>
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.