Fwd: Maximum term for tech ctte members
On 26 June 2014 08:18, Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes ("Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members"):
> - Term limit: Every 1st of November, the most senior member of the
> Technical Committee's is immediately and automatically removed
> from the Committee, if in the preceding 27 months less than two
> new Committee members have been appointed. Seniority is
> determined by a member's most recent date of appointment to the
> Committee, with ties broken by length of membership in the
> Project.
27 months prior to November 1st is August 1st two years prior. (Is
there any particular rationale for Nov 1st?)
So by my count, that would result in:
- 2014-11-01: Keith appointed in the previous 27 months, Ian removed;
"Alice" appointed
- 2015-11-01: Keith and Alice appointed in the previous 27 months, no
compulsory removal
- 2016-11-01: Alice appointed in the previous 27 months, Bdale
removed, "Bob" appointed
- 2017-11-01: Bob appointed in previous 27 months, Steve removed,
"Carol" appointed
- 2018-11-01: Bob and Carol appointed in the previous 27 months, no
compulsory removal
- 2019-11-01: Carol appointed in previous 27 months, Andi removed,
"Dave" appointed
- 2020-11-01: Dave appointed in previous 27 months, Don removed,
"Emma" appointed
- 2021-11-01: Dave and Emma in previous 27, no compulsory removal
- 2022-11-01: Emma in previous 27, Russ removed, "Fred" appointed
- 2023-11-01: Fred in prev 27; Colin removed, "Gwen" appointed
- 2023-11-01: Fred and Gwen in prev 27, no compulsory removal
- 2024-11-01: Gwen in prev 27, Keith removed, "Henry" appointed
- 2024-11-01: Henry in prev 27, Alice removed, ...
Total term lengths would then be:
- Ian: 16 years (1998-2014)
- Bdale: 15 years (2001-2016)
- Steve: 11 years (2006-2017)
- Andreas: 13 years (2006-2019)
- Don: 11 years (2009-2020)
- Russ: 13 years (2009-2022)
- Colin: 12 years (2011-2023)
- Keith: 11 years (2013-2024)
- Alice: 10 years (2014-2024)
That seems overly long.
> But adding non-normative text:
> The Technical Committee should arrange to appoint fresh members
> on a regular basis, at least as often (and probably more often)
> than the minimum specified here.
That's only possible when the ctte isn't full; if the ctte's full, the
only way to refresh members is for someone to be removed... If the
idea is to leave have some spare slots on the committee on an ongoing
basis, that may mean even longer terms than implied above, eg an
additional twelve months for Steve:
- 2014-11-01: Keith appointed in the previous 27 months, Ian removed;
- 2015-10-30: "Alice" appointed
- 2015-11-01: Keith and Alice appointed in the previous 27 months, no
compulsory removal
- 2016-11-01: Alice appointed in the previous 27 months, Bdale removed
- 2017-10-30: "Bob" appointed
- 2017-11-01: Allice and Bob appointed in previous 27 months, no
compulsory removal
- 2018-11-01: Bob appointed in prev 27, Steve removed
> I think 6 years is probably a better actual term than 9 or 4.5. So I
> would be in favour of the TC running an election for 1 place every 18
> months.
1 place every 18 months would be an average term of 8x1.5 = 12 years,
or 9x1.5 = 13.5 years...
> - For the purposes of seniority and term expiry, someone who leaves
> the committee but rejoins it less than 10 months later, is
> treated as having been a member continuously throughout that gap.
I don't think that would have any teeth:
2014-11-01: only one recent appointment, Ian most senior, Ian removed
2014-11-02: Ian reappointed, term treated as continuous
2015-11-01: only one recent appointment, Ian most senior, Ian removed
2015-11-02: Ian reappointed, term treated as continuous
2016-11-01: no recent appointments, Ian most senior, Ian removed
2016-11-02: Ian reappointed, term treated as continuous
...
>> [on your earlier non-specified-date scheme:]
>> But it sure gets confusing, especially with Colin having to resign
>> after four years in order to be re-appointed to serve eight years,
>> rather than maxing out at about six years and not being immediately
>> re-appointable. Worse still with Keith who (I think) would max out
>> after 3 and a bit years, get reappointed, and would then have to
>> resign a few months later and get reappointed in order to max out at
>> eight years...
> This is a consequence of the rule running continuously rather than
> at fixed intervals.
No, it's a consequence of the rule allowing for approximately one
immediate re-appointment. The combination of:
- The committee's membership will be reviewed annually on August 16th.
- At that point, if there have not been at least two members leave
the committee in the past 12 months, the most senior committee member's
term expires immediately.
- In addition, if there are more than five members in the committee, and
no members have left the committee in the the past 12 months, the
second most senior committee member's term also expires immediately.
- A developer is not eligible to rejoin the committee if they have
been a member for more than four of the past five years.
has a similar effect. If Colin were to resign prior Aug 2015, he could
be reappointed and stay on board until around Aug 2019 or later; but
if he didn't, he and Keith would be the most senior remaining members
by Aug 2017, and only Keith would be eligible to be reappointed at
that point.
I think that leaves me still leaning towards the following or
something pretty close to it:
- On August 16th of each year, the terms of any Committee Members who
have served on the committee for 50 months (4 years and 2 months) or
more will ordinarily automatically expire. However an individual
member's term may be extended for an additional twelve months if there
are two or more Committee Members who have either served on the
Committee for a longer continuous period or left the Committee in the
preceding twelve months.
- A developer is not eligible to be reappointed to the Committee if
they have been a member of the Committee at any time in the preceding
twelve months.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@erisian.com.au>
Reply to: