Re: [Gendispatch] draft-rsalz-termlimits

[Rob Sayre <[e-mail]>]

I mostly agree with Barry as well. I also find that the people who get
reappointed or agree to serve again tend to be pretty cool folks, so I'm
not sure term limits solve a problem. However, I'm not against it either,
really.

thanks,
Rob


On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 12:26 PM 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
>