Re: [Gendispatch] draft-rsalz-termlimits
Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Wed, 20 October 2021 19:26 UTC
Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.com>
X-Original-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4113B3A0DCA for <gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 12:26:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5E0F1sjvoVUL for <gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 12:26:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd2c.google.com (mail-io1-xd2c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2E8603A0DE4 for <gendispatch@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 12:26:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd2c.google.com with SMTP id d125so26046063iof.5 for <gendispatch@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 12:26:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=cziEWb8G7XOscmA9hDp/P5wNU8QVVcYFaHU7nxcv678=; b=wPj9xuVlojnKFCJDDEFjQyuUwfAfMNAJpkVNwbfdoJ6EB2IXKXgaUYO6Cq6sXC5b93 jP0d/SdT7zri44cMnx4jq+6CdEZgURytU1BU4RoINFVg5jUrL6414tdrKWVw06CMlZ5P kpnmhMQj3StBkzp5wFMN3Bjq0+P6mW+8jJpuFiplbxNl8XmWwQxVeiI1f1xtGQhwDw1y xn/ei6vHqfgG4i+jUz3ZOUH4e/5czDqgeXCpFSavWl3BSTGdrvc02/L/JvsvWIzIfXyP zcbnjW8bDVU28B4B0whr1trRqsWNUs0pZE5rIF/UbU0nyeiXB/uhM9xkxV8epYg92mr9 iAIg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=cziEWb8G7XOscmA9hDp/P5wNU8QVVcYFaHU7nxcv678=; b=ns+O04HzF7DNB1tBz8isUhJW6Mpq6BEG/8hpyXFWusI1biQyY17hXbbfZOi8FwYNFw Nl5QXyX3+lSEg4tzbpzM5F7R93NcVJQ6ImUhb0jY/MkK2xrEtWZ/dgr5Ot3XN89NPB6w Dgbm8iYW3nVYZtHwVbw1zv8ryj8we0juJYMYEZgZHBfE009TbnOCHU8b3QyCbsIbJZCD USzeYT9EHu3xYoo3V/NC3M7Z3dS1zIZ8dRUwfTSzPt34UCH21idOPFiu7w39/WlEro4Q do65cwCsyeU/iQTwo6IHX15/TAp21uLL1HY8fd2JbgUsPuLLfWMFfgS4KB5gmlZBMo0w 3iRA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530boRVIXxdkfc/jXjxdTXK+LDcHPWOZFZEQNreO4h7go00pAYrk OUBZJqHT7Q3GqVV9UIE6FTZBxruW9O1VtC04mfg2fA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwXlA20qo5p/w97K959LQsT5HfkuHqOeT2JXh/c2rSbbT7//m1BkuU5TLmQHravQXJbrxXtd8fPa5Y4oDbKvY4=
X-Received: by 2002:a6b:c309:: with SMTP id t9mr814278iof.50.1634757990677; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 12:26:30 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <4BDF1DD9-9D30-499F-8C26-1E7790F2A729@akamai.com> <CALaySJKYG8ydGrgdSKZY1b28VL2DvwTS_3_40y_eFkHcGjdJXg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJKYG8ydGrgdSKZY1b28VL2DvwTS_3_40y_eFkHcGjdJXg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2021 12:25:54 -0700
Message-ID: <CABcZeBMKpJAmUD3xc-b5jcyMKQkZCxJK8jFVxBaL==ZnJRA-2A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba=40computer.org@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz=40akamai.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "gendispatch@ietf.org" <gendispatch@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000054198e05cecdc11c"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/hGXr5qxY0pNv1tlXSehi7G057oE>
Subject: Re: [Gendispatch] draft-rsalz-termlimits
X-BeenThere: gendispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: General Area Dispatch <gendispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gendispatch>, <mailto:gendispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gendispatch/>
List-Post: <mailto:gendispatch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gendispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gendispatch>, <mailto:gendispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2021 19:26:51 -0000
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= 40computer.org@dmarc.ietf.org> 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 > Gendispatch@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gendispatch >
- [Gendispatch] Agenda item request Salz, Rich
- Re: [Gendispatch] Agenda item request John C Klensin
- [Gendispatch] draft-rsalz-termlimits Barry Leiba
- Re: [Gendispatch] draft-rsalz-termlimits Salz, Rich
- Re: [Gendispatch] draft-rsalz-termlimits Kyle Rose
- Re: [Gendispatch] draft-rsalz-termlimits Barry Leiba
- Re: [Gendispatch] draft-rsalz-termlimits Salz, Rich
- Re: [Gendispatch] draft-rsalz-termlimits Eric Rescorla
- Re: [Gendispatch] draft-rsalz-termlimits Bob Hinden
- Re: [Gendispatch] draft-rsalz-termlimits Rob Sayre
- Re: [Gendispatch] draft-rsalz-termlimits Salz, Rich
- Re: [Gendispatch] draft-rsalz-termlimits Mark Nottingham