Re: [Gendispatch] draft-rsalz-termlimits

[Bob Hinden <[e-mail]>]

I agree about hard term limits, but think the selection bar should go way up for more than two terms.  Related, I think doing a second term as an AD (and other positions too) should be encouraged.

I think people should not move directly from one leadership group (IESG, IAB, LLC, Trust) to another.   At least one year being a regular IETF participant provides a lot of perspective.   Otherwise we get an inbred (so to speak) leadership who may loose site of what it is like to be a regular IETF participant.   Note, I purposely didn’t include w.g. chair in my list.

The IETF Chair is different, I agree it’s good to have a person who has served recently as an AD.  I think that should be the exception to moving between leadership positions.  However, I don’t think an IETF chair should be appointed to the IAB, LLC, or Trust directly when their term ends.

Bob




> On Oct 20, 2021, at 10:23 AM, Barry Leiba <barryleiba=[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Rich, thanks for bringing this to discussion.
> 
> First: I am very strongly *against* hard term limits, as it places
> unreasonable limitations on the appointment process.  In a public
> voting system, it's antidemocratic, artificially eliminating the
> ability to vote for whom one thinks is best.  In our NomCom system, it
> restricts the NomCom from considering excellent candidates who have
> been doing well and can be expected to continue that way.  And it
> would make it impossible for a NomCom to re-appoint an excellent AD
> (say), when there are no good alternatives, ending us up with a bad
> choice because it's the best the NomCom had to work with.
> 
> Second, I am very strongly *for* soft term limit guidance.
> Specifically saying that NomComs MUST consider more than two terms to
> be atypical and more than three to be truly exceptional, and [etc,
> etc, wording like that with further explanation] would absolutely get
> my support.  But NomComs *have* to have options to deal with
> situations where re-appointing someone for a third (or fourth) term
> really *is* the right thing *in this case*.
> 
> Third, while I appreciate the desire not to have ADs move straight to
> the IAB or vice-versa, and while a one-year gap before making the move
> is not unreasonable, the issue is more of a challenge for someone
> moving into the IETF Chair role.  Here are two reasons why:
> 
> - It's critical for an IETF Chair to have experience as an AD.  And,
> while Lars's experience is older and he is doing and will do fine,
> we've generally had more recent ADs step into the IETF Chair position.
> I would not want to limit the NomCom by saying that they can't appoint
> a sitting AD as the next IETF Chair.
> 
> - The IETF Chair is only appointed every two years.  An AD who wants
> the IETF Chair position would have to step down at least a year ahead,
> and an AD whose term is in sync with the IETF Chair appointment would
> have to step down at least two years ahead.  Given that a one-term
> IETF Chair is likely to get a second term, that could move to four
> years ahead.  Now we have an AD who might have been a great choice for
> IETF Chair, but has to wait four years -- and be four years away from
> the AD experience -- before she will really be considered by the
> NomCom (especially if we should also move in the direction of JCK's
> proposal).
> 
> So *if* we should go in the direction Rich proposes, I would want to
> see an exception for IETF Chair appointments.
> 
> But, really, I'd much rather see us move toward giving NomComs very
> clear and strong guidance on what the community expects, but leave
> them the option to do what needs to be done as the situation might
> require.
> 
> Barry
> 
> --
> Gendispatch mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gendispatch