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

Keith Moore <> Thu, 21 October 2021 04:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AD523A129E for <>; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 21:21:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id deuy8FFqeGEy for <>; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 21:21:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2A34C3A129D for <>; Wed, 20 Oct 2021 21:21:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal []) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7588F5C00B1 for <>; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 00:21:14 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 21 Oct 2021 00:21:14 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=gASp8tOQpQuod7Z1PiaMdvX3lwa/JOZ+ixFwbzjK4 1k=; b=lz3tFZdYtuFOt48/5NdIlKE0Md6obmO2xkFaHPoe80IsZznHVV1Uk0BWM 5HlNQYRvJix11FYZyDRtqy0RHs/00altOCGcSTKvbHkzKEocym7fpLQw+DYjhZZe vgLs0L1e9+Hat8DDr5MyLOGKHR/uqqyzY/movy9L92NpbfbATqpE8L0XHPswDV+a 5Nhp4oLjHc9UEYN9iCRRVTNJlcpCagjbmiRKggBkWTAJwsypYLcJk95IGuSsfByu MMcEaqy5ulAVk7TnNHL7iSWT1GRwgj81im5iE/rUruwvGAfoeWZwyvElS+0npL8R q5FOVyRXon5neVP6knYS0OqkE07Kw==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:uupwYVqkgWlyvzJnjU2TTY5AJ_EVgPHjfGO-K546CzTxNnC_uurCQQ> <xme:uupwYXryyTwOYdEBw6wR5VVBAzw4FaaXGyblqpLipyXsQhY5N96Qge0m6G1MqXTws EK8Xj2gtSvajw>
X-ME-Received: <xmr:uupwYSMyrp3rwgX3vV7xLkjXOW5pmtP8GGT3bQ_XPVdcqh697IdzCXIaalYCHyPH2TEvLJD9Tzb9Lulibcy3G-_sQFlf2TSa0pVcOO4-6iMwaGDQjPsLuA>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvtddrvddvhedgjeeiucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefuvfhfhffkffgfgggjtgfgsehtke ertddtfeejnecuhfhrohhmpefmvghithhhucfoohhorhgvuceomhhoohhrvgesnhgvthif ohhrkhdqhhgvrhgvthhitghsrdgtohhmqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeehhfeutdehfe fgfefghfekhefguefgieduueegjeekfeelleeuieffteefueduueenucevlhhushhtvghr ufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehmohhorhgvsehnvghtfihorh hkqdhhvghrvghtihgtshdrtghomh
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:uupwYQ43XnsopeXa-AP6VP2CzSH_2ntLJqyxwMZ57-5cO2PdSMBMQA> <xmx:uupwYU7Jv02el7-09SYwgxbWxWHbOgsAhaZPXw5Gv87uC-SaEU16bQ> <xmx:uupwYYhmUyI66m0E06g_sh3Tg1EiI9Os13ScIYv6IKc0ZCucj8T1wA> <xmx:uupwYWGAHFI0JzMefkKQnQfuxkWpeK7CjdjqTBpVy9c9Q5ncFgL5-w>
Received: by (Postfix) with ESMTPA for <>; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 00:21:14 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-rsalz-termlimits-00.txt
References: <20211021005426.639E92B1D176@ary.qy>
From: Keith Moore <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 00:21:13 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.13.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20211021005426.639E92B1D176@ary.qy>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 04:21:21 -0000

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.