SEP 052 - SBOL Governance Update

[Pedro Fontanarrosa]

Hello,

          I invite you all to check out and discuss SEP 052, put forward by the SBOL Editors, which proposes some SBOL Governance changes regarding SBOL Editors' term duration and re-election. 

Cheers,

Pedro

[Chris Myers]

Hi James,

It is meant to be unanimous support.  Do you have a suggestion for a better way to make that clear?

Thanks,

Chris

On Jan 12, 2021, at 4:55 PM, James Scott-Brown <ja...@jamesscottbrown.com> wrote:

I think that the phrase "at the discretion of all editors and the chair" is ambiguous: is this meant to require unanimous support, a simple majority out of editors + chair, the decision of the chair after consulting the editors, or something else?

Being explicit about this would reduce the potential for awkward misunderstandings or disagreements; these seem unlikely but are still worth trying to avoid.

Kind Regards,

  James Scott-Brown

  ja...@jamesscottbrown.com

On Tue, Jan 12, 2021, at 12:35 AM, Jacob Beal wrote:

Hi, Pedro:

I think that the proposal overall is reasonable, but have a couple of issues to raise.

Being able to desynchronize editor terms is a good idea, and we've de facto done that a number of times by playing with term length. I like codifying this, but would like to have it made clear that the purpose is only for desynchronizing, rather than "we want to keep Editor X around longer because they're cool."  I would suggest the following alternative wording:

> Editors serve for a two-year term with the option of extension for up to three years (at the discretion of all editors and the chair) for the purpose of reducing problems caused by synchronization of terms.

The other clause, about continuing an editor if there are no nominees, seems reasonable. However, I am concerned that it may allow the community to be "lazy" about outreach and let itself become more insular over time.

Thanks,

-Jake

-- 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SBOL Visual Working Group" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sbol-visual...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sbol-visual/caddd31c-8a76-4384-b797-a19a751e1a8an%40googlegroups.com.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SBOL Visual Working Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sbol-visual...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sbol-visual/1d40373e-61a1-4fa7-a364-6acc588cfc86%40www.fastmail.com.

[Chris Myers]

Hi James,

The three year term is not for the purpose of reducing problems caused by synchronization.  The extra year is a compromise worked out by the editors (and current and past SBOL Chair) that 2 year terms are too short.  Rather than go to 3 year terms, which some fear would scare away some potential editors to make it instead a 2+1 year term to allow editors who are effective to essentially elect to do a 3 year term.  So, how about:

"Editors serve for a two-year term, with the option of extension for up to three years. Any term extension requires the unanimous agreement of the editors and chair.”

Thanks,

Chris

On Jan 12, 2021, at 5:05 PM, James Scott-Brown <ja...@jamesscottbrown.com> wrote:

I would say:

Editors serve for a two-year term, with the option of extension for up to three years for the purpose of reducing problems caused by synchronization of terms. Any term extension requires the unanimous agreement of the editors and chair.

Kind Regards,

  James Scott-Brown

  ja...@jamesscottbrown.com

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sbol-visual/A03F77AA-540F-44D2-8120-F1C2AF56D66B%40colorado.edu.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SBOL Visual Working Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sbol-visual...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sbol-visual/c1d12f3b-48d3-4e77-87bf-3086dd97a9fc%40www.fastmail.com.

[Jake Beal]

I would not agree with the assertion that a 2 year term is too short.

Thanks,

-Jake

[Bryan Bartley]

Hi all,

I agree with the spirit of the proposal.  I sympathize with the Chair's and former Chair's perspectives that 2 years is just long enough for many editors to really "learn the ropes", at which time they must step down.  I know I felt this way at the end of my term as editor.  At the same time, for some prospective editors, a 3 year commitment is going to be too much, and 2 years is plenty.  And even though I also felt this way at the end of my term, I know it isn't true for everyone.

I am no expert in crafting legislation, but why does term length need to be so rigidly defined?  Can't we bake some flexibility into our governance language? For example: 

Editors are expected to commit to a term of no less than two years and no more than three year terms according to their ability and cannot serve terms consecutively.

This really leaves the length of service up to the choice of individual editors, also allows flexibility for leadership to coordinate the timing of editorial turnover, all while avoiding any perception of "we want to keep Editor X around longer because they're cool."

Thanks

Bryan

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SBOL Developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sbol-dev+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sbol-dev/0e80e03b-dba2-4522-8b3b-6cd8c3f5b60dn%40googlegroups.com.

[GONZALO VIDAL PENA]

In this regard why the organization dont make:

New SBOL Editors have a 2 years period.

Allow free or max periods Re-election 

(2 periods or 4 years as proposed in SEP052 are 3 max periods here (2+1+1))

Re-elected SBOL Editors have a 1 year period.

This will make possible to conserve editors but they compete often for their charge. A Re-elected SBOL Editors could extend his period by 3 years or 4 with another re-election.The re-election can be in non-consecutive elections/years. New SBOL Editors have priority, which means Re-elected SBOL Editors are only considered if there are no New SBOL Editors in the call, following the logic of SEP052.

I think this could be a more flexible solution, what do you think?

Kind regards,

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SBOL Developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sbol-dev+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sbol-dev/0e80e03b-dba2-4522-8b3b-6cd8c3f5b60dn%40googlegroups.com.

[Chris Myers]

Hi Bryan and Gonzalo,

These are reasonable alternatives.  I think one way to that might unify the proposals would be to lift the restriction on re-election, but simply say that existing editors can be re-elected but only for one year terms.  This solution may end up being simpler and more democratic.  If we add this restriction, I think we might not need the added constraint about no other nominees.  Simply make it clear that existing editors on the ballot would only get a 1-year term extension while new editors would get 2 years to start with.

Thoughts?

Chris

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sbol-dev/CAFhbtuxVa3ApA7pBA_T7zXYewk1tkCRYEm_ScKU_j7g%2BdMRDWg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Anil Wipat]

I’m in support of the notion to extend the term of the editors flexibly in some fashion. I feel that a high turn over of editors can be detrimental and there is lot to learn. An editor can only just be getting the hang of things after 2 years and reaching their most productive period. I think there should be a way to keep an editor on to make the most of their experience if deemed appropriate. With so many editors the turn around will still be enough to keep things ‘well mixed’.

 

Cheers

 

Neil

 

From: sbol...@googlegroups.com <sbol...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Jake Beal
Sent: 13 January 2021 00:41
To: SBOL Developers <sbol...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: SEP 052 - SBOL Governance Update

 

⚠ External sender. Take care when opening links or attachments. Do not provide your login details.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SBOL Developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sbol-dev+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sbol-dev/0e80e03b-dba2-4522-8b3b-6cd8c3f5b60dn%40googlegroups.com.

[Pedro Fontanarrosa]

Another option would be that an extension precludes the option of re-election.

With both options (extension AND re-election) we might looking at a 5 year-long term for an SBOL Editor. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sbol-dev/LNXP265MB007549FCF6FC0DBC047E74D7C9A90%40LNXP265MB0075.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.

[Pedro Fontanarrosa]

Given the feedback we received, we've updated SEP 052 with what we think is a good compromise for all the opinions and concerns that were put forward. Please check it out and if you have any questions/concerns/comments/opinions please let us know so we can continue the discussion.

Cheers,

Pedro 

[Jake Beal]

I'm happy with the updated statement in principle. 

One minor edit that I would suggest: the "non-consecutive" is now implicit, and I'd suggest making it explicit again.

A possible phrasing: "Editors serve initially for a two-year term, and upon unanimous approval of the editors and chair, editors can run for re-election for an additional one-year term. After that, a person may not run for editor again for at least one year."

Thanks,

-Jake

[Chris Myers]

Hi Jake,

We actually were proposing to eliminate term limits and replace with this two step process for re-election, unanimous approval of chair and editors AND election to a new one year term.  We think this is simpler and provides some flexibility.

Thanks,

Chris

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sbol-dev/8cc72092-e3dd-427b-9427-48b1b9b4c4d7n%40googlegroups.com.

[GONZALO VIDAL PENA]

Hi everyone,

I agreed with Jake to make explicit the possibility of non-consecutive terms always from one year. Also agreed with Chris that there should not be limits for re-election, the two-step process should be enough to maintain a dynamic population of SBOL Editors.

Kind regards,

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sbol-dev/52A50811-A43B-469C-AE6B-5649B25AB7AC%40colorado.edu.

--

Gonzalo Vidal

Biological and Medical Engineering PhD student at IIBM

[Jake Beal]

Hi, Chris:

My edit was only about making the gap explicit. The SEP currently includes the two-step process for election.  If that's not intended, that should be modified.  I think you're saying that you'd be comfortable with:

"Editors serve initially for a two-year term, and upon unanimous approval of the editors and chair, an editor's term can be extended for an additional third year. After completing their term as editor, a person may not run for editor again for at least one year."

Thanks,

-Jake

[Chris Myers]

Hi Jake,

I think that is consistent with our initial proposal.  We got the sense from some of the earlier comments that maybe a further vote of the community was needed to extend for a year.  However, I think we would be fine with this version, if the community is comfortable with it.

The one potential issue is that this does not provide a means for an editor to be re-elected after their full 3-year term ends if there are no other nominees.  However, perhaps we should in this case work harder to find nominees.  

Thanks,

Chris

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sbol-dev/9fa6e592-4ebb-49af-8bd8-c487dc25a849n%40googlegroups.com.

[Pedro Fontanarrosa]

Any further thoughts on this? Should we allow for the re-election of SBOL Editors or not?

Option 1) "Editors serve initially for a two-year term, and upon unanimous approval of the editors and chair, editors can run for re-election for an additional one-year term.  "

Option 2) " Editors serve initially for a two-year term, and upon unanimous approval of the editors and chair, an editor's term can be extended for an additional third year. After completing their term as editor, a person may not run for editor again for at least one year  "

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sbol-dev/19035ECB-183A-47D8-AA5A-C94F403C0992%40colorado.edu.

[Kulkarni, Vishwesh]

Dear Pedro,

 

I think “Option 2)” is preferrable.  Thanks,

 

Vishwesh

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sbol-dev/CAN_F%2Bf%3DX4NUJGErXX0x68MOC7v3hrvtnvKApUFfAEGsOGDbkow%40mail.gmail.com.

[GONZALO VIDAL PENA]

Hi everyone, 

I'm ok with both options. Even if option 2 states more constraints on re-election of sbol editors pass 2 times the 2 steps filters is very unlikely being very similar to option 1 at the end. Even if in the practice they are very similar could be better to implement option 2.

Regards,

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sbol-dev/CAN_F%2Bf%3DX4NUJGErXX0x68MOC7v3hrvtnvKApUFfAEGsOGDbkow%40mail.gmail.com.

[Hasan Baig]

Hi Pedro, 

For option 2, did not we decide that the same editor can’t run for 3 months instead of 1 year? 

I might misunderstood.

Regards

Hasan

On Jan 29, 2021, at 9:07 AM, Pedro Fontanarrosa <pfonta...@gmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sbol-dev/CAN_F%2Bf%3DX4NUJGErXX0x68MOC7v3hrvtnvKApUFfAEGsOGDbkow%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jake Beal]

I'm in favor of option 2.

[Chris Myers]

Hi,

I think Option 2 is fine.  Let’s put that one up to a community vote.

Hasan: I think we talked about 3 months, but I think a year is perhaps more reasonable.

Thanks,

Chris

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sbol-dev/a087211b-f9a6-4334-baed-278fab24e882n%40googlegroups.com.