Re: [Gendispatch] draft-rsalz-termlimits

[Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]>]

+1. Our bench is sometimes *very* thin for ADs.

Regarding the IAB - rather than tweak the rules it might be good for the community to have a re-think about the function that it serves (or thinks it does). Once we have clarity on that we can figure out what the best policies are.

Cheers,


> On 21 Oct 2021, at 6:25 am, Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> I mostly agree with Barry. Specifically, Barry raises two points:
> 
> 1. In exceptional cases a candidate needs to be appointed for a third term. I've seen this as well though I think it wouldn't be fatal if we limited to two terms.
> 2. That often you want to pick an active AD or an IAB member as IETF Chair. I think this is the strongest point and it would be quite bad to make this more difficult.
> 
> I am more sympathetic to the IAB case: there are always a lot of IAB candidates and I don't think that having it be common practice for ADs to go right to the IAB is that great.
> 
> -Ekr
> 
> 
> 
> I
> 
> On Wed, 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
> -- 
> Gendispatch mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gendispatch

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/