Standing Rule 4: Election and Term of OpenC2 Co-chairs

[duncan sfractal.com <duncan@sfractal.com>]

I would like to reiterate several points Joe mentioned and propose some changes.

 

According to standard OASIS practices, elections are for life terms and I wholeheartedly support periodic re-elections. I have even suggested this to OASIS as a whole for all TCâs and my understanding is this is under consideration. Since OASIS uses 2 year terms for OASIS  Board, I think two year terms is very appropriate. I think the SR wording should be changed to 2 years instead of 24 months. 24 months implies a precision that I donât think is intended. OASIS Board uses 2 years and I think that is what we should use.

 

I think staggering terms by 1 year is better than potentially changing both cochairs at same time. It also makes the election easier (just voting for one position). I do think the âcurrentâ terms should run until June so the current chairs can serve their full two years (ie no need to cut it short). So I propose the SR be modified to June. This would also give us time to do nominations one meeting, election next (January seems rushed).

 

I am against term-limits. People should be allowed to continue if they want to and if the group wants them to,

 

Election of a cochair requires a majority of voting members voting for one candidate. I think âinstant runoffâ is both more fair and more time-efficient if there are 3 or more candidates for a position. Instead of voting for a single candidate, you rank order your choices. This is considered more fair by many involved with elections. It is more likely to support âthe will of the peopleâ when there are âsplit voteâ scenarios. More importantly from our viewpoint, it may save having to vote again if no winner in round 1. Note it may even help if only two candidates and enough people considered their second choice acceptable enough to include. I recognize instant runoff may be logistically challenging to do by January (but we could potentially do by June or in future elections).

 

I propose the election of the TC cochair occur prior to the cochairs in the agenda. I assume this would be the case (was in the inaugural TC meeting) but worth stating,

 

Duncan Sparrell

sFractal Consulting LLC

iPhone, iTypo, iApologize

I welcome VSRE emails. Learn more at http://vsre.info/

 

 

From: TC OpenC2 <openc2@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Joseph Brule <jmbrule@radium.ncsc.mil>
Date: Wednesday, November 28, 2018 at 9:53 AM
To: TC OpenC2 <openc2@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: [openc2] Standing Rule 4: Election and Term of OpenC2 Co-chairs

 

OpenC2 Technical Committee,

 

Please refer to the November 13 email, subject âAdopt a standing rule to define 'duration of term' for the Technical and Subcommittee co-chairsâ

 

I have not heard any objections to the principle of having a defined term and regularly scheduled elections for the co-chairs, in fact the feedback I have received so far is supportive. 

 

At our next meeting (December 19), I will make a motion to create a ballot for our forth standing rule.  The standing rule will require a full majority to pass (that is greater than 50% of the voting members must vote yes).   

 

Here is a draft of SR-4.  Please do violence with your red pens.

 

SR-4:  Election and term of OpenC2 Co-chairs

1.       The Technical Committee (TC) and each subcommittee (SC) shall elect two co-chairs

a.       A co-chairâs term shall be 24 months

b.       The period of each co-chair for the TC or an SC is offset by 12 months

2.       The TC shall hold open elections in the month of January

c.       All TC members (to include the incumbent co-chairs whose terms are up) are eligible for nomination to an office

d.       In the event of a vacancy (such as a co-chair stepping down prior to the conclusion of their term), a replacement will be elected to complete the term

 

Here are some initial comments that I have received.  Please provide your comments and your opinion on the comments received. 

 

Duncan Sparrell suggested that we hold the elections in June (rather than January)  to coincide with the month that the TC was stood up.  I picked January for no particular reason and I do not have a strong opinion.   If anyone has a preference, let me know.

 

Duncan Sparrell suggested that we conduct the election via an âInstant Runoffâ mechanism.  For those who are unfamiliar with the instant runoff procedures, refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting.  I am fine with the notion of using instant runoffs, but that would merit its own SR (I think) because voting applies to more than just co-chair elections.  We could add a line after point five along the lines of âIn the event that there are three or more candidates for a single position, then the instant runoff procedures as described in SR-X shall be usedâ. 

 

Bret Jordan suggested that we remove the offset, i.e. all co-chair positions come up for election simultaneously.  I think there is value in the offset for continuity of operations.   There is also a practical issue;  We have a total of eight co-chairs, there could be a challenge in finding eight volunteers simultaneously. 

 

Bret Jordan suggested that we not allow a person to serve as co-chair for two consecutive terms.  The guidance I received from Chet Ensign in this matter was âI discussed this with the Board's Process Committee when it first came up. We agree that holding periodic chair elections didn't violate the TC Process so long as everyone could stand including the current chairs. There is nothing in the rules at present would give us grounds for hard term limitsâ

 

Bret Jordan suggested another standing rule that any one organization is not permitted to have more than one co-chair in the TC at a time.  My opinion:  At the OASIS Technical Committee level,  membership is based on individuals, not organizations, that is 1 member = one vote, not one company=1 vote, therefore I do not see the basis nor agree with the notion of limiting member participation.

 

Thank you

 

VR

 

Joe Brule

 

_____________________________________________
From: Brule, Joseph M
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2018 11:10 AM
To: 'openc2@lists.oasis-open.org' <openc2@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: Adopt a standing rule to define 'duration of term' for the Technical and Subcommittee co-chairs

 

 

OpenC2 Technical Committee,

 

The co-chairs have been discussing a proposed standing rule for our technical committee to define the duration of a co-chair's term.  Currently, the OASIS procedures define at most two co-chairs for a technical committee or subcommittee, however the length of a co-chair's term is undefined.

 

A proposal was made to adopt a standing rule.  The rule would:

         Define the length of the term as two years,

         Offset the terms by 12 months for the two co-chairs so that an election is held for one of them every 12 months.

         The TC would hold open elections every 12 months for all TC and SC chairs whose terms are up.

         All TC members (including incumbents) are eligible for nomination for an office (i.e. the current officer is not term limited)

         In the event of a vacancy (such as a co-chair step down prior to the conclusion of their term), a replacement will be elected to complete the term. 

 

I think scheduled elections will provide a greater opportunity for diverse members to become co-chairs and infuse the effort with new perspectives.  I think the offset will build in continuity of operations. 

 

Among the co-chairs, I have heard no objections to the proposed standing rule (in fact those who have shared their opinion are supportive) and I took the liberty of asking Chet Ensign if it would be OK from an OASIS perspective.  OASIS does not have an issue if we adopt a standing rule along these lines. 

 

I will take the liberty of drafting a standing rule and will release it for comment in the near future. I do request your opinion in this matter.  Obviously we will discuss the matter at the TC monthly but your insight and opinion in advance would be most appreciated.  If you do not feel comfortable stating your opinion openly, I will respect your wish and I will present the perspective anonymously on your behalf. 

 

Please consider this proposal. 

 

Very Respectfully,

 

 

Joe Brule