Re: [Gendispatch] draft-rsalz-termlimits

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Sat, 23 October 2021 14:28 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF7F03A09BD for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 07:28:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.648
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.648 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 JYc1OPwLNrsd for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 07:28:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vk1-f180.google.com (mail-vk1-f180.google.com [209.85.221.180]) (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 ACCBA3A098A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 07:28:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vk1-f180.google.com with SMTP id s136so1500987vks.5 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 07:28:21 -0700 (PDT)
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=i+5Ly/zycL1TNZNc4HdCAwyb4Ogeor2WJwB5pu5gdsw=; b=7BAe9FsBBnogO2JGHEEfKvolT5SJ7T3GpBdPUxfvSj4kts/kT+KAWE4YPt44Lb7o2q 6gQWCC/iUKqb9zhVTzftkdPhgv0GOJJs/FkPmMIQx9sJeFXTns4HzOKOvKDZgdVcxqrj EUPhXTpX+HXASxP+4vGtwODmMZEczJaM/rSd7T5i1QJOkw9OdZ3NX/+OSI/6nbrCiDgx 7GFRL4N4XWIaSDwIJibB7ieug4szSARiEzzDR3Vt1fn4s1232dRGXJdbqpyOi3EGkutb O6kGWpDlDT4JsSxzvYZig21DoZrgGxp30RKcdZoP4XHdhjOslJrkDkdqi2gTAZkl3x6Z UNNw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533zbjLu0Sr+mIn/Bl18zuGnjrTn5onw2faP7yclWHGaIKmvUWQe PUUvAuTdy4MAYpmqZ00JXege1USQJXlzvQwHhb5R3txv4Ek=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzPSFINAy8+gSoA4hmD/Y3BvTC6dMP8NGkJqDECBan7emcdOvJm6pLFMKGNrPVnJ9V+88x2FAbl/5B3nW6vnls=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6122:730:: with SMTP id 48mr1592643vki.22.1634999300594; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 07:28:20 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <394BBA1E-FA83-4E80-A143-BE3F0764DCDA@tzi.org> <F2D8B2B0-1005-424F-9984-3AC6F951E02F@eggert.org> <CDD17BF9-BBF6-413F-80A6-2928995807C1@akamai.com>
In-Reply-To: <CDD17BF9-BBF6-413F-80A6-2928995807C1@akamai.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2021 10:28:09 -0400
Message-ID: <CALaySJKOd-A6F8XLwv5Dxn=GwxAmf-Mnr0KbuAmLoJzazgDrpw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Gendispatch] draft-rsalz-termlimits
To: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>
Cc: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000851f9505cf05f065"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/4bXn7tGkxPy8A1a3Y4zBwU4PfVw>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2021 14:28:26 -0000

But it IS in NomCom’s hands, and the complications you add only make it
more clear that firm rules are likely to cause problems, reducing judgement
and adaptability.

Barry

On Sat, Oct 23, 2021 at 10:16 AM Salz, Rich <rsalz@akamai.com> wrote:

> >   I’m wondering what the opinions are on how a NomCom should weigh the
> importance of a gap year (or similar concept) against other considerations
> they have been told to pay attention to, such as no more that two members
> in a body with the same affiliation, other diversity guidance, etc.?
>
> Which is another reason why I propose not putting it in Nomcom's hands.
>
> Jane at Example, Inc. has been an AD for three terms, and Bob and Sue are
> potential AD's also from Example Inc.  Bob has nobody else standing in
> competition and Sue has never been an AD.  What should they choose?
> Suppose Jane is also unopposed?
>
>
>