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

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Thu, 21 October 2021 13:36 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.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 097803A1681 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 06:36:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.com
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 Vq63CGSd-xRv for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 06:36:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailb2.tigertech.net (mailb2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.154]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7FA2A3A0891 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 06:36:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4HZpRc2bZcz1nslp for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 06:36:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1634823404; bh=LEOFWEC30lL10OtihI/Rsp3/BV6JhG94YhvhgfYwb7M=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=UNU7KdTbtMoSSzBpaiMCXphzK3k/3NL0UxxyylmtLWOx9GrAct2NtSH2QIgVoEOTM TwY5w6x6MtEX9QFpOtnE6d7Egp2067IAlDaWcjBE13lJkN7caJNdCvmkULYVbHfxTf K+Z1nJ9Rk9bMLrgUCQ6YE9oUbDfMQ2Y51bd2A1mU=
X-Quarantine-ID: <AFLrD0GsIVd2>
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at b2.tigertech.net
Received: from [192.168.22.111] (50-233-136-230-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [50.233.136.230]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4HZpRb6w7Kz1ns8B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 06:36:43 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <353f301c-d3e5-7a00-3e1c-87a866c1c80b@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 09:36:41 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.2.0
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-rsalz-termlimits-00.txt
Content-Language: en-US
To: ietf@ietf.org
References: <20211021005426.639E92B1D176@ary.qy> <e6d59712-ca73-0723-5cb2-b1f749e37577@network-heretics.com>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
In-Reply-To: <e6d59712-ca73-0723-5cb2-b1f749e37577@network-heretics.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/IMrxTjOwZIl0YRrlmJO7yw4U73Q>
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 13:36:51 -0000

I fully agree with Keith on this.

Yours,
Joel

On 10/21/2021 12:21 AM, Keith Moore 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
> 
>