Re: [802SEC] Term limits
This is the same point that I tried to make in my longish summary. We don't appear to have a problem. Pushing out good people is a problem. If we had problem, waiting 8 years is not a good fix. So, strike the clause right away. Discuss if a problem exists and if so how to deal with it, on a longer time frame that allows more WG discussion.
-----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 9:46 AM
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.