Re: [802SEC] Term limits
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.
At 15:15 17/02/2005, Ajay Rajkumar wrote:
>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
>independent of a particular Chair/Vice-Chair's extension re-election and
>the time of end of an 8-year term.
>I also feel that any rules change in this matter should be in consultation
>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:email@example.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:
> >>We discussed possible changes on term limits at a prior EC meeting,
> >>though I doubt that all requirements of 126.96.36.199 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.