Re: Want to be on the IESG?

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

--On Monday, October 4, 2021 20:56 +0100 Stephen Farrell
<[e-mail]> wrote:

>> and probably others.  There are reasons, some of them valid,
>> for not doing any of this. But not doing anything is going to
>> lead to increasing ossification as we've already seen in the
>> surveys and such.  And we know the IETF hates ossification.
> 
> Here's one, in case someone wants: impose an N year gap
> between memberships of the IESG and IAB except to allow
> one transition from IESG to IAB. IOW, when you exit the
> IESG or IAB you can't be on the IESG or IAB for N years
> (modulo the exception above). That might cause a crisis
> in a short enough while, and maybe we need one of those.

Stephen,

Proposed before, including in the direction of IESG-> IAB
transfers which you would allow but that I suggest has often not
worked out well.  The problem is that the two bodies have very
different types of responsibilities, authority, and ways of
doing work.  Some people have made the shift well but many
others have treated the IAB as a nice place to retire while
remaining a visible part of the leadership, as a body more
characterized by individual fiefdoms than one that needs to work
together, and/or one that exercises the same level of authority
as the IESG is seen as exercising but with a different topic
range.  IMO at least (having served on both bodies and made the
IESG-> IAB transition, albeit long ago), none of those three
behaviors are good for the community.  There is also a
Nomcom-related reason: service on the IESG is not a particularly
good basis for evaluating someone for an IAB position or vice
versa, especially if they have already held those positions for
four or six years.   For those reasons and others, forcing
someone stepping down (of being removed from) the IESG or IAB to
spend some time as an IETF participant doing technical work in
the trenches would be a good idea even though I would set N at
two or possibly one.  Conversely, if any significant harm would
be done by having relevant people out of the leadership for a
couple of years, we have bigger problems that I hope there is a
plan about addressing.

best,
   john