Re: Want to be on the IESG?

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Monday, October 11, 2021 13:24 -0500 Spencer Dawkins at
IETF <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi, John,
> 
> Just a couple of comments on your comments, which I largely
> agree with. I copied the one that seemed most important here,
> just so it doesn't get overlooked.
> 
> [2] There is arguably a fundamental conflict when the IESG
>> proposes or decides about suggested procedural changes that
>> would affect how the IESG works or how its members are
>> selected. On the one hand, ADs presumably have more intimate
>> familiarity with the issues than anyone else.  On the other,
>> they volunteered and were selected with assumptions about how
>> things work, how (or if) they are held accountable, whether
>> it is easy or hard for them to get additional terms if they
>> want them, and so on.  And the decisions to which that leads
>> may or may not be in the best interests of the community and
>> the Internet even if they are in the best interests of the
>> sitting IESG and people who are very much like them.

> I don't disagree, but one other point has come up repeatedly
> in my conversations with IESG members (both while serving as
> an AD, and while doing something else) - the sitting members
> of the IESG have been able to arrange their lives in a way
> that allows them to accept a confirmed appointment. If we keep
> asking people who don't have a problem with the way things are
> now to change the way things are now, that seems
> counterintuitive.

Indeed.

best,
  john