On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Chip Childers <chip.child...@sungard.com> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 12:36:36PM -0500, David Nalley wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Chip Childers >> > I'd also point out, as one of our mentors did in the private list >> > discussion, that the chair role is largely an administrative one. >> > >> > And while we're at it, the private discussion brought up the idea of >> > re-introducing a rotation (or at least a "term"), which would allow >> > for a regular opportunity to recommend a change to the board. I'm not >> > sure that it's required, given the nature of the job... but does anyone >> > have an opinion? >> > >> > -chip >> >> I'm personally 'meh' on this. >> As you noted the role is largely an administrative role than fearful >> power and authority; and I am inclined to have a person, particularly >> if they are bearing the job well, to continue with it until such time >> as they no longer wish to bear it. >> >> I do understand the point that 'regular' rotation can provide the >> perception of the project not being 'controlled' by a single entity. >> From inside the project, I don't see that, but perhaps outside the >> project that is an important consideration. >> >> --David >> > > David - your opinion was shifted during discussions on the private list. > Care to share an update? > > For the record - I'm for adding a term, where the option of switching > the chair (which is largely an administrative role anyway) is regularly > discussed. I'd propose annually. > > -chip
Yes - meant to get to this earlier. My opinion has been swayed by Alex Karasulu While I was originally against this, I see little negative, and it has the following benefits: * ensures someone else learns the job * ensures that we are clear it isn't a position of power for one person or one company to hold onto forever. I'd be happy with a term for the chair and one year seems to be fine for term length. --David
