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

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Thu, 21 October 2021 06:01 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
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 C9B303A0B92 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 23:01:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 4K1TL0TnqET9 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 23:01:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gabriel-smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:32::15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7B2CD3A0B95 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 23:01:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (p5089a10c.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [80.137.161.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4HZcLT3jTdz30MB; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 08:01:37 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.120.0.1.13\))
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-rsalz-termlimits-00.txt
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <e6d59712-ca73-0723-5cb2-b1f749e37577@network-heretics.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 08:01:35 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <8B07BCE4-2D21-4FD8-B46C-54D7A993D6EF@tzi.org>
References: <20211021005426.639E92B1D176@ary.qy> <e6d59712-ca73-0723-5cb2-b1f749e37577@network-heretics.com>
To: ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.120.0.1.13)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/9UqcKw-Vls2qsQt02bidh67idHU>
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: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 06:01:48 -0000

+1 (to both JohnL and Keith).

Grüße, Carsten

> On 21. Oct 2021, at 06:21, Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> wrote:
> 
> On 10/20/21 8:54 PM, John Levine wrote:
> 
>> It sure seems like "we don't believe nomcoms will pick the right people so we are inventing more rules."
>> 
>> I agree with Barry that a convention not to appoint someone for more than N years is fine, but if we
>> then think we need a stick to force nomcoms to do that, we have problems that term limits won't solve.
> 
> On balance, I think this is right.   Also, I have seen some ADs that I thought served too long, but I don't see a correlation between the quality of past ADs and either the length of their terms or the number of "gap years".
> 
> If we think we need more churn in ADs, the solution is some combination of finding/grooming more good candidates and making it easier for people to serve, so that the nomcom has better candidates to choose from.   I'm pretty sure the solution is NOT to paint the nomcom into a corner - they have plenty of constraints already.
> 
> Keith
> 
>