Re: [Gendispatch] draft-rsalz-termlimits

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Sat, 23 October 2021 14:32 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 608213A0A94 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 07:32:47 -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 g2Q6vUpfN-6s for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 07:32:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ua1-f54.google.com (mail-ua1-f54.google.com [209.85.222.54]) (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 47ABD3A0A8F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 07:32:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ua1-f54.google.com with SMTP id p23so383627uaa.6 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 07:32:42 -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=xMn5JkO3shbf4Cdd4g4DtRA04+DHVf1Gjptudg2eCI0=; b=AuYAnwdAIxitoLBbrj6YSfrWzKtuqf8DhxF/tVNU4P+rmBNRjAeMo6yY2qvWcp3KfD C0t+8JLURmkuzFPbnhVwrO7p43ymWJz4qoYRZZpafQCgEVtrb3blTIGqPnBjta6hAR+N 1d7Z/r1lJHdZzOqCMiedTbXbc6r1wlkl+O1+d5ru6VnkdEypKCwy+wH8koQXNiErfUAh Fdi26yu+tu+KKII9gh1x8ncppDumSq/vPrYVCQ61Zdq+7ZbxLBsBfphFiabCxIOGZlI9 MCMzAuGjq8E2MwLyfr6JKLpDXYN0PScUqZHLEzLiC8aSpxD4KcbBH8yDdU3Ez4BVUlve 91WQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5316ql2D5jgfgCSGVMO0SSBjPj1yy7rrfvO6y1hM4JK5dqcryDHF 1eSHPYp6l0niUbt2VkqaLNvQFIkgaJEcj6GNHCE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy6tdgg9B6OKHBZkO86eLhE4wDUpCivN+qsvo6IwtnrwaEv3lqDmf1o7LOJ+UePYHGPwIjdBjSvMyC4zGhm9Bw=
X-Received: by 2002:ab0:6393:: with SMTP id y19mr6471278uao.94.1634999561274; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 07:32:41 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <394BBA1E-FA83-4E80-A143-BE3F0764DCDA@tzi.org> <F2D8B2B0-1005-424F-9984-3AC6F951E02F@eggert.org>
In-Reply-To: <F2D8B2B0-1005-424F-9984-3AC6F951E02F@eggert.org>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2021 10:32:30 -0400
Message-ID: <CALaySJJu0V7=JuD5mG_JxAE30JvqAo1=G=mkVr+394zz7afSxQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Gendispatch] draft-rsalz-termlimits
To: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
Cc: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, "Salz, Rich" <rsalz=40akamai.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, ietf@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000000ec72305cf0600c2"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/E3cucvoijrr_wZ4VYWAAdU33lYw>
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 14:32:48 -0000

Actually, I think it’s best not to try to do that, just as the IESG has
written up lists of desired expertise and doesn’t try to micro-manage
that.  We can give NomComs guidance along different axes and then let them
use their judgment in how to apply them to the situation they are given.
Their good judgment is what we’re asking them to volunteer as NomCom
members.

Barry

On Sat, Oct 23, 2021 at 4:21 AM Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> 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.?
>
> If we think that additional guidance to the NomComs would be useful, we
> should probably also give them some idea of how to weigh it against other
> guidance we already gave them?
>
> Thanks,
> Lars
>
> --
> Sent from a mobile device; please excuse typos.
>