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

["Deen, Glenn (NBCUniversal)" <[e-mail]>]

On 10/26/21, 1:22 PM, "ietf on behalf of Mary B" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> on behalf of [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

Exactly.   The Nomcom can't make good decisions unless we get good feedback from the community and in my experience a small percentage of the community provides feedback.  We've had many discussions as to how this list doesn't necessarily reflect overall community consensus, so Nomcom should not be expected to consider this as input to the process (IMHO).

My personal opinion (Nomcom voting member hat off) is that If we actually had lots of volunteers for these positions, then I'd absolutely support the notion of ensuring folks didn't move from IESG to IAB (which is the most common path I think) and so forth.  However, we don't have sufficient resources in the community that are willing and able to serve in these roles as is IMHO.  This will only make that problem worse.  And, personally, I think we had two  great IETF chairs that each served 3 terms.  So, it's not clear to me we're solving a real problem with these proposals.

On the IESG->IAB path, I’ll offer the observation that it has been such a common migration path that many in the community may actually have come to believe that it’s how one qualifies for the IAB, as if the IAB were in effect the IESG Emeritus.    I know that is not the case but that doesn’t mean people don’t perceive it that way.

It’s not unlikely that we’ve lost many good prospective IAB candidates to self-pruning because they have observed the IESG->IAB flow and believe that it’s a requirement and they don’t meet it since they haven’t been an AD.

-glenn