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

[Jacob Beal]

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

[Chris Myers]

Hi Jake,

The proposal is not for desynchronization.  This is a request from the editors that think 2 years is too short a term.  It is a compromise between extending to 3 year terms which might scare off some potential editors and keeping at 2 which some feel is too short include at least the last two SBOL Chairs (Anil and myself).  

The continuing an editor clause is one we struggled with finding the right language.  We do want turnover, but we also have sometimes had issues recruiting editor nominees.  

We could make these two separate votes, since they are separable issues.

Thanks,

Chris

--
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.

[James Scott-Brown]

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

[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

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sbol-visual/1d40373e-61a1-4fa7-a364-6acc588cfc86%40www.fastmail.com.

[James Scott-Brown]

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.

[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

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

On Jan 12, 2021, at 6:41 PM, 'GONZALO VIDAL PENA' via SBOL Developers <sbol...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

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,

On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 9:40 PM Jake Beal <jake...@gmail.com> wrote:

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

Thanks,

-Jake

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.

--
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/CAFhbtuxVa3ApA7pBA_T7zXYewk1tkCRYEm_ScKU_j7g%2BdMRDWg%40mail.gmail.com.