proposed change to a rotating Secretary role

[samspills]

A common theme in our meetings was an adjustment of the Chair role. I have tried to capture the ideas expressed:

• renaming, in an attempt to clarify responsibility
• scoping the role responsibility more explicitly
• switching to a rotation

Discussion Points

1. We discussed (in the Monday meeting) that the Secretary would also act as a "sheepdog", generally shepherding and helping to progress committee projects/initiatives. I have attempted to capture this explicit responsibility, but please bike shed on language
2. We discussed (in both meetings) that the position should be a rotating one. I arbitrarily chose 12 months for this PR. Is that too long? Should it be 6 months?

This is very much just a first draft that I've put together (and I'm not very good at sounding official), so please feel free to propose changes and discuss!

Per the charter, this PR will require approvals from 2/3 of committee members before being accepted and merged.

[JasnaMRB]

I think it would also be nice to add something like:

If a secretary must resign before their 12-month term finishes, a month's notice is requested, if possible, to allow a smooth transition to a new secretary.

[samspills]

Added!

[rossabaker]

This is important, because there's no line of succession if things get stuck. While our means are modest, we should at least aspire to be more dependable than the United States House of Representatives.

[rossabaker]

I'll wait for the comments to slow down and then call a vote, so people don't have to vote repeatedly on minor revisions.

[rossabaker]

Does "new" imply non-consecutive terms? I think that should be the norm, but what if the incumbent is good and energized and nobody else wants the job?

[JasnaMRB]

Good point. I personally wouldn't mind the same person keeping the position, if the majority and the person agree to it.

[valencik]

How about something like

"The Secretary's term will be 12 months long. At the end of the term the Steering Committee will vote to appoint a new Secretary or renew the current one."

[samspills]

Thanks for the wording, I've added that!

[jducoeur]

I think this wording is fine, but culturally, we should encourage the incumbent Secretary to ask themselves if they want to stay in the office. It's very easy to fall into a mindset of continuing to renew if nobody else is trying to grab it out of your hands, and that can be damaging all around. Instead, the default should be to pass the job along unless the incumbent is having fun and still energized.

(In the local SCA, all offices have three-year terms. With a few exceptions, folks can re-up indefinitely. But I have the job of going up to the officers every three years and asking "Do you really want to keep doing this?" If the answer isn't a solid "yes", I encourage them to step down and have somebody else take over.)

[rossabaker]

This is important, because there's no line of succession if things get stuck. While our means are modest, we should at least aspire to be more dependable than the United States House of Representatives.

Changes

[rossabaker]

Going to let this stabilize a couple more days before calling the vote, so as not to stifle discussion, but I'll count approvals after the most recent commit as affirmative if you want to vote early.

[rossabaker]

@typelevel/steering: Discussion has tapered off, so I am calling the vote. Open until November 2, 2023, 03:00 UTC and quorum (7) is reached, whichever is later.

• 👍 to approve faac96c. The two approvals above will count unless contradicted.
• 👎 to reject. If the vote fails, the PR may be kept open to refine and revote.
• 👀 for present.

Threshold is 2/3 affirmative.

[rossabaker]

Quorum (7 > 6) is reached and vote is affirmed (100% >= 2/3).