Hi, On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 02:28:06PM -0500, Michael StJohns wrote: > I can see various scenarios like: "I'm tired of doing this after 6 months [&c] If you really think that the IAB members are that irresponsible, surely we should be talking about shutting down the IAB, not whether any IAB member ought to be an IAOC member. > Everyone else on the IAOC has term requirements/expectations of a sort - > and I mean everyone else. Stamp your foot and say it louder, if you like, but it's false. I could be replaced tomorrow by the IAB, and the IAOC would get a new member thereby. It doesn't happen because when selecting the IAB chair the IAB looks in part for stability. I don't have any problem with a statement that the community is better served if the appointment to the IAOC is stable (though in fact I think there is no evidence one way or the other about this). I have a problem with elevating what is currently a social convention that is provided for through good judgement into a job requirement written into formal selection criteria. > changes). I want there to be an expectation expressed by the IAOC towards > the IAB of who and how the IAB will provide its member, with the > understanding that extreme cases (member gets sick, member gets fired from > his job, member ends up in too many conflicts of interest etc) requiring > replacement may occur, but that generally service on the IAOC has a term and > commitment obligation. Since you want all of that, please write down all the rules for how handling of replacements ought to work. Suppose that it's (say) October. Suppose that, tragically, the IAB member who is on the IAOC is struck with a serious illness such that he or she cannot continue. Suppose further that all the people whose term is about to be up have already told the nomcom that they're not going to stand again. So, you're down to 50% of the IAB, and none of them can promise to be on the IAOC for 2 years because their term ends in less time than that. Even if some of the about-to-depart people put their names in, there's no guarantee that they'll be reappointed so maybe they won't be able to do 2 years either. If we follow the path of writing down all the rules for this, we need a procedure to follow in this imaginary case (and probably a dozen others I could think of if I tried). If we follow the path of assuming that the so-called leadership will behave in a responsible fashion, we don't need any of those rules. And if we don't think that the so-called leadership will behave in a responsible fashion, then I think we should be worrying about an altogether different set of issues. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx