Re: Should someone be prohibited from serving in 2 roles?

[Michael StJohns <mstjohns@mindspring.com>]

At 09:46 PM 3/31/2003 -0500, Avri Doria wrote:
> Michael StJohns wrote:
> Either being a member on both is prohibited - in which
> > case the Nomcom can act to do the replacement as part of the
> > confirmation process; or its not prohibited, which suggest its a very
> > separate action from the normal replacement process.  Pick one - PLEASE
> > don't leave this to chance and good will.  For example, what happens if
> > IAB member A is nominated and confirmed for a position on the IESG, but
> > refuses to resign from the IAB????
>
> Then he or she would end up serving on both.
> this was discussed at length and I believe that
> the consensus was that while this is not to be
> recommended, it should not be prohibited and
> thus is advised against, but not prohibited.
>
> >
> > Please simplify this by explicitly prohibiting dual membership - there
> > is no real reason not to.
>
> I think there was an assumption that there was not an
> absolute reason for forbidding it and therefore there
> was no consensus for forbidding it.  There was consensus
> for recommending against it.

This is actually two different threads which have some interaction.

The first thread is the interaction between the question of whether or not 
someone should serve on both boards with the question of when the Nomcom 
should act to replace someone who's on one board who is then confirmed on 
the other.

The result here is either a member should be prohibited from being on both 
bodies, OR the Nomcom should be enjoined from filling a vacancy until 
actually asked.   Mechanically, as long as either of these conditions is 
explicitly specified I think things will work.  The DT specifies the latter 
as the preferred approach and mechanically, I don't have any strong objections.

The second thread is a more basic one of whether or not its appropriate for 
someone to serve on both boards, and while you note discussion of this 
topic, you don't elaborate.

Given that the IAB acts as a check and balance on the IESG process, it 
seems to me to be a bit  inappropriate for an IESG member to also be an IAB 
member.  Without a perceived benefit, I see no great reason for not 
prohibiting this particular cross-membership.  Could one of the DT 
elaborate on why they think this might ever be useful to the 
community?  And whether or not that usefulness outweighs the possible 
perception of loss of independence of the two bodies?

Thanks - Mike