Re: I-D Action: draft-rsalz-termlimits-00.txt

"Joel M. Halpern" <> Thu, 21 October 2021 13:50 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D158F3A1792 for <>; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 06:50:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.088
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.088 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, T_SPF_TEMPERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id STTV-JBrrh91 for <>; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 06:50:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 83C283A1770 for <>; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 06:50:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4HZplC0zWDz1ns8B; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 06:50:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=2.tigertech; t=1634824215; bh=ANBwmnamUquSoSUgGpx7MzfQZetmkepVzutTr/aUjyo=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=LTQqZHwb1G2LySc1Miia5xlD6mSy0Pq+CLIGP5UiCXZqb+M1/8Zkb3s6NBVGKJ9J8 dcWEP5VnAYIEStzBrvWtdKK/o+rzK8FIYdOhB7S9lWSecdI7tO6VWL8lECPxK+VdRR wkgMxCjMvtcBxXaU2AwaMzjNpU9QPZHOBGt6G5cU=
X-Quarantine-ID: <kixRQDixPgKi>
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at
Received: from [] ( []) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4HZplB4fFtz1nslp; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 06:50:14 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 09:50:12 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.2.0
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-rsalz-termlimits-00.txt
Content-Language: en-US
To: "Salz, Rich" <>, "" <>
References: <20211021005426.639E92B1D176@ary.qy> <> <> <>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 13:50:33 -0000

I would love to see more nominees.  (I would like even more to see more 
skilled, capable, nominees).

Making rules that cause serious problems if the community does nto 
suddenly provide something that it has failed to provide when pushed in 
the past seems a recipe for problems.  We have, multiple times, had 
problems of insufficient nominees.   It has caused problems.
Can we please not make it worse.


On 10/21/2021 9:44 AM, Salz, Rich wrote:
>      >> It sure seems like "we don't believe nomcoms will pick the right
>      >> people so we are inventing more rules."
> No.
> My intent was to encourage *the overall IETF community* that it is worth trying to get into IETF leadership more often.  NomCom can't appoint someone who isn't nominated. I am trying to get a bigger pool of nominees. In my opinion, one of the most tractable ways of doing this is to break the "once a leader always a leader" view that, in my experience, discourages new people from trying.