[governance] Update on Candidates for MAG Nominees [7 more hours to Go] URGENT

[Roland Perry]

In message <355763A6-3333-45ED-AE39-5822BE74B92A at glocom.ac.jp>, at 
14:07:47 on Thu, 14 Nov 2013, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> writes
>I remember a comment that the rotation would be about one third of the
>MAG each year. But I don't think there's any formal confirmation of
>that anywhere (perhaps is a MAG meeting note?)

I don't have the proof immediately to hand, but I'm sure that the 
one-third has been part of the process from the start.

>My maths appalling.  Does that mean those appointed in 2011 would now be rotating out?

Not because of the year they were appointed.

In the early years it was never clear if the 1/3 rotation would mean 
that everyone would be on a maximum tenure of three years (and the 
corollary, that everyone would stay for three years if they wanted to, 
before being automatically rotated off). This is the scheme commonly 
used for non-executive directors, trustees and so on in the bricks and 
mortar world.

But as the years rolled by, it became apparent that there was no 
automatic "retirement" due to length of service or automatic tenure for 
three years, and all it meant was that 1/3 of the MAG each year (or in 
practice a little over) would be new "new faces".
-- 
Roland Perry

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t