Re: Selection Process

["Beast (Donald E. Eastlake, 3rd)" <[e-mail]>]

From:  Bob Stewart <[e-mail]>
In-Reply-To:  Stephen D Crocker's message of Wed, 25 Nov 92 12:20:45 -0500 <921
[e-mail]>
>I'd like to put in a word for the sentiment from the plenary that perhaps we
>don't need the recall procedure.  The two year term supplies a natural point
>for graceful resignation or failure to be reappointed.  It's not clear to me
>that we are likely to have a problem so pressing as to require an ever-present
>threat of public accusation, trial, and crucifixion.

I might agree to this for any sort of committee or collegial thing but
most orgnaizational proposals I have seen mandate a number of very
important positions to be held by single persons (Chair, Architect,
Editor, whatever).  Presumably this is a testimony to how well the
functions to be performed have been done by a single person in the
past.  But I see two problems: (1) people and circumstances change,
sometimes faster than one would like, so if you make a single
person/position pivotal enough, then you have to have a recall
procedure, and (2) these provisions limit, to an unnecessary extent,
organizational flexibility.  On this second point, there are actually
a range of posibilities extending from mandating only a single Chair
at one end to providing that the body (IAB or whatever) has the power
to define and select its own officers at the other extreme.  Inbetween
posibilities, would be something like requiring a Chair but providing
that the body could define and select addtional officers.  I favor the
more flexible of these possibilities.

>I'd like to see us come to a consensus that the recall procedure isn't worth
>its painful implications and potential.
>	Bob

Donald