William Sylvester via db-wg wrote:
9) In the case more than one chair is up for selection at the same time, the chair with the greatest support will take a multi-year term, the chair with the least support will take the second longest term. Terms will be determined by the number of chairs (3 chairs = 3 year term, 2 chairs = 2 year teams). The intent is to maintain continuity of the working group chairs. So the working group is never left without a chair.
hopefully not too late: Judgement calls about "greatest support" are hard and are open to different opinions, which is synonymous with ambiguity. This is probably something that should be avoided if possible. It might be simpler to specify something like: 9) every year, the longest serving chair will vacate their position. If there are chair-critters who have been in place for the same amount of time, then lots can be drawn as to who gets to resign. This guarantees that the maximum term = maximum number of chairs = 3. The suggestion provides a rotation mechanism which is unambiguous and quite similar in aims to the current proposal, but has no requirement for anyone to make an assessment about who had the more support - which, incidentally, could be assessed as equal in certain situations, in which case there's no tie-breaker. Nick