Re: Maximum term for tech ctte members
On 30 May 2014 19:37, Anthony Towns <aj@erisian.com.au> wrote:
> I might have another go at seeing if I can word it for rolling twelve
> months, to see if that's workable.
Okay, so I gave it a go, and came up with:
- A Technical Committee member's term will end upon resignation, removal
or expiry.
- A Technical Committee member may resign by stating such in public
email to the committee discussion list.
- If the Technical Committee and the Project Leader agree they may
remove or replace an existing member of the Technical Committee.
- The most senior member of the Technical Committee's term expires
immediately, if in the preceding twelve months fewer than two
Committee members' terms have ended. 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.
That should work okay along with:
- A developer is not eligible to be reappointed to the committee if
they have been a member for more than four of the past five years.
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...
Maybe it would be simpler and better to go with something like:
- On August 16th of each year, the terms of any Committee Members who
have served on the committee for six or more years will ordinarily
automatically expire. However an individual member's term may be
extended for the next year, if two or more Committee Members have
either left the Committee in the preceding twelve months, or served on
the Committee for a longer continuous period.
- 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.
Assuming no one resigns or gets reappointed to the committee, that would mean:
- Aug 16 2014 - Ian (16y), Bdale (14y) out; Alice, Bob in
- Aug 16 2015 - Steve (10y), Andi (10y) out; Carol, Dave in
- Aug 16 2016 - Russ (7y), Don (7y) out, Emma, Fred in
- Aug 16 2017 - Colin (6y) out, Greta in
- Aug 16 2018 - [no change]
- Aug 16 2019 - [no change]
- Aug 16 2020 - Keith (7y) out, Henry in
Leaving:
Alice, Bob - 6 years in
Carol, Dave - 5 years in
Emma, Fred - 4 years in
Greta - 3 years in
Henry - fresh blood
Specifying "six years" means you effectively get seven years though,
unless appointments manage to happen on or before Aug 16th. "5.5
years" is probably better, which would bring Keith's term back to
2019, and result in just under six years in practice, I think. "4.5
years" would get to Stefano's suggestion of 5y on / 1y off, which
might look like:
- Aug 16 2014 - Ian (16y), Bdale (14y) out; Alice, Bob in
- Aug 16 2015 - Steve (10y), Andi (10y) out; Carol, Dave in
- Aug 16 2016 - Russ (7y), Don (7y) out, Emma, Fred in
- Aug 16 2017 - Colin (6y) out, Greta in
- Aug 16 2018 - Keith (5y) out, Henry in
Leaving:
Alice, Bob - 4 years in
Carol, Dave - 3 years in
Emma, Fred - 2 years in
Greta - 1 year in
Henry - fresh blood
Cheers,
aj
Reply to: