Re: [802SEC] Term limits
John,
I believe that change is good and necessary for any organization
over a period of time. Rapid churn, or change just for changes
sake is not necessarily a recipe to achieve organizational goals.
While it is not a requirement for the SA to develop leaders to aid
industry, the SA needs to develop leadership so that it achieves its
goals (which I assume is the development of standards).
To that end, I don't see having a term limit as necessary, but I do
want a mechanism to insure that an officer has the strong backing
of the WG and EC to continue in their job.
I like simple rules, so I don't really like a sliding scale
method of setting the bar.
>50% is too low a number and makes domination easier
>=75% proves that concensus on management is similar to concensus on
technical issues
For groups that are at loggerheads, I agree that this may cause
management churn every 2 years, but as I've said before those groups
have bigger problems, and aren't likely to be producing standards
anytime soon anyway.
mike
John Lemon wrote:
> Mike,
>
> It all comes back again to why you want a term limit. If the reason is to remove someone you don't want in "power" any more, the more logical approach is to make the removal process easier (e.g., the no confidence procedure I suggested). If the reason is merely to achieve some change, then I could see a gradually increasing margin of acceptance that someone must meet at each reaffirmation (e.g., 2 years: 50+%, 4 years: 55+%, 6 years: 60+%, 8 years: 65+%, maybe allowing it continue all the way to 100% or maybe capping it at 65% or some other amount between 50% and 100%). Also, if the reason is merely to achieve some change, is this because you believe that the SA has an obligation to build leaders, you believe that change for change's sake is good, or some other reason?
>
> jl
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Takefman [mailto:tak@cisco.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 8:19 AM
> To: John Lemon
> Cc: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] Term limits
>
>
> John,
>
> I think perhaps people (including myself) are using the term
> confidence vote outside of its normal scope and it is causing
> confusion.
>
> 802 already has rules for:
> - calling a new election at any plenary session (requires a motion
> to hold an election passing by 75%)
> - the removal of a chair by a working group for cause.
>
> Now, you could make a case for replacing these rules with what
> you have below, but this would not have the same effect due to
> the lower threshold.
>
> The question we are grappling with is whether 802 has
> a term limit or not. This is being driven not so much by chairs
> wanting to stay on, but rather avoiding losing capable vice-chairs
> who do the work no-one else wants to do :-).
>
> The sense I am getting from people is that few want a term limit,
> but still want some method of aging out an officer who could win a
> simple majority, but not a super majority. My motivation for this
> is to make it much more expensive and difficult to buy an election,
> and to allow a semi-graceful way to tell an officer it is time to
> move on.
>
> cheers,
>
> mike
>
> John Lemon wrote:
>
>>Again, I don't think that we have a problem that needs to be solved. However, if you insist on solving it anyway, I strongly advocate using the same mechanism to dissolve a parliament by allowing a vote of no confidence. If this is done, then I suggest modeling it after Germany's rules:
>>1) All no confidence motions must be made in plenary (or at least quorum).
>>2) All no confidence motion requests made in one meeting are lumped into one motion. (Effectively, no more than one allowed in any meeting.)
>>3) The actual voting does not take place until the following plenary.
>>4) The no confidence motion must pass by simple majority.
>>5) A passing no confidence motion is followed by attempts to place a new person in office.
>>6) The number of motions to place a new person in office are limited only by the number of people being nominated for office.
>>7) The first motion to place a new person in office obtaining a simple majority passes and subsequent motions to place someone else in office are out of order.
>>8) If no motion to place a new person into office passes, then the person losing the no confidence vote is retained (to avoid the problems that Germany had in 1919).
>>
>>If you really want a removal process, I suggest that the above is fair, logical, easily understood, and well established in many parliamentary governments. However, I still maintain that there is no problem needing to be solved.
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-802-sec@ieee.org]On
>>Behalf Of Mike Takefman
>>Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2005 1:40 PM
>>To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
>>Subject: Re: [802SEC] Term limits
>>
>>
>>Tony,
>>
>>I'm not comfortable with your particular idea. I believe it pretty much
>>insures that in a close race the appointment of the chair and vice
>>chairs will go to the EC chair. Which insures that either the entire
>>working group will be unhappy or just one side of the working group will
>>be unhappy. And it sticks the EC chair with a very messy problem to deal
>>with.
>>
>>I'll suggest an alternative, which I am not completely happy with either.
>>
>>Lets make the term limit > 5 plenary cycles, and turf any
>>chair/vice chair who cannot hold the confidence of the group.
>>
>>Any chair or vice chair who intends to stand for re-election at a time
>>when they will have been in the position for > 1.6666 years must receive
>>a 75% approval in a confidence motion.
>>
>>This relieves the EC chair of the onerous and political task of second
>>guessing the election results of the group.
>>
>>This gives the chair a 2->3.666 year chance to prove that they belong
>>in the job.
>>
>>For WGs that have a political issue limiting their ability to make
>>progress, I submit that churning the chair every 2 years won't
>>necessarily make that situation any worse. And it actually gives
>>an incentive to the chair to work positively with all sides,
>>assuming of course, they want to keep the job for a longer period.
>>
>>mike
>>
>>
>>Tony Jeffree wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Ajay -
>>>
>>>How does this sound?
>>>
>>>- Lose the term limits altogether;
>>>
>>>- Require a motion passed with >=75% approval vote for *all*
>>>Chair/vice-Chair elections in WGs, and for affirmation of *all* elected and
>>>appointed members by the SEC.
>>>
>>>If there are multiple candidates in a Chair/vice-Chair election, this would
>>>mean that the WG would have to pass a motion by >75% that the winning
>>>candidate be approved by the SEC.
>>>
>>>This would have the distinct advantage that a Chair/vice-Chair would know
>>>they have the support of a super-majority of their WG. It has the
>>>disadvantage that in some cases it may be difficult to find someone that is
>>>sufficiently acceptable to a broad spectrum of opinion; however, arguably,
>>>the WG is in deep problems anyway if such a person can't be found, so the
>>>fallback of appointing by the SEC Chair would probably be appropriate at
>>>that point anyway.
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>Tony
>>>
>>>At 15:15 17/02/2005, Ajay Rajkumar wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Bob,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>On 2/15/2005 10:52 PM, Grow, Bob wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>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?
>>>>
>>>>My only point was that "if" the assumption is that there is an
>>>>"incumbency
>>>>influence" then the 75% WG approval (option #4 in your email) should be
>>>>obtained
>>>>independent of a particular Chair/Vice-Chair's extension re-election and
>>>>not at
>>>>the time of end of an 8-year term.
>>>>
>>>>I also feel that any rules change in this matter should be in
>>>>consultation
>>>>with
>>>>WG/TAG to avoid the "appearance of conflict of interest".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>Tony
>>>
>>>----------
>>>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.
>>
>>----------
>>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.