Re: [Gendispatch] draft-rsalz-termlimits

"Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com> Sat, 23 October 2021 14:16 UTC

Return-Path: <rsalz@akamai.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 825463A08F8 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 07:16:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.551
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.551 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.452, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=akamai.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 kdj8Zz6nVIzQ for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 07:16:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com [IPv6:2620:100:9005:57f::1]) (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 E69AD3A08AE for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 07:16:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0050102.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0050102.ppops.net-00190b01. (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 19NB81WZ032112; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 15:16:27 +0100
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=akamai.com; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-id : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=jan2016.eng; bh=KAqRv1nt+Tzx1fduiasieo7/bt5qrm0XopnOqtTdjcg=; b=SD7Dt9hwWndBsNgbNek2qz+iC82IzcLPng8XqEr0TAtwHAo+MoxaeG5xzMKPNZArdKnN FFIBWvav+lwj1tmqrrAUcuhXo4Y5FcJ6HmIMc8HCHLMCwoi/DrMzWEHZM4Bl5WEC+OI1 Slifss8NJ+0vP68w6gJ/ILCjobfRupR6PLfvouzOx3MRjOnbFty6XzZuCYwkIBL4ytwB ImaBE6HgKtDpullroQqPzAISE+QK/S5IyOFeLaao9qU8hrJv7qCgDxtWJ573FHrdQLiO 4+4Mn9v/TdRw54t718z66NG7iWSwnYZC+vas+o/BOjcBnvaTMvUukxySyKdwosC3DSsZ pg==
Received: from prod-mail-ppoint2 (prod-mail-ppoint2.akamai.com [184.51.33.19] (may be forged)) by m0050102.ppops.net-00190b01. with ESMTP id 3bv7feq733-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Sat, 23 Oct 2021 15:16:27 +0100
Received: from pps.filterd (prod-mail-ppoint2.akamai.com [127.0.0.1]) by prod-mail-ppoint2.akamai.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 19NE5ivB027109; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 10:16:26 -0400
Received: from email.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.32]) by prod-mail-ppoint2.akamai.com with ESMTP id 3bvdqyrgpq-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Sat, 23 Oct 2021 10:16:26 -0400
Received: from USMA1EX-DAG1MB1.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.101) by usma1ex-dag1mb4.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.104) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.23; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 10:16:25 -0400
Received: from USMA1EX-DAG1MB1.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.101]) by usma1ex-dag1mb1.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.101]) with mapi id 15.00.1497.023; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 10:16:25 -0400
From: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>
To: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
CC: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Gendispatch] draft-rsalz-termlimits
Thread-Topic: [Gendispatch] draft-rsalz-termlimits
Thread-Index: AQHXxddAKjIdH+LOF0mnbpXJbOhEqavcjNMA///ZkgCAAFLzgIABD1eAgABfEID//799gIAASNuAgAAGkACAAVCYgP//wGGAAArUxgAAHN9sgAAEBdIA
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2021 14:16:25 +0000
Message-ID: <CDD17BF9-BBF6-413F-80A6-2928995807C1@akamai.com>
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>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/16.54.21101001
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [172.27.164.43]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <7DD71EF130718D4492E577A498FAE15B@akamai.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.425, 18.0.790 definitions=2021-10-23_03:2021-10-22, 2021-10-23 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 phishscore=0 suspectscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=574 malwarescore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2109230001 definitions=main-2110230090
X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: voLuCGWsYHsYu7DmnHH2JsJBVBhZr9oL
X-Proofpoint-GUID: voLuCGWsYHsYu7DmnHH2JsJBVBhZr9oL
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.182.1,Aquarius:18.0.790,Hydra:6.0.425,FMLib:17.0.607.475 definitions=2021-10-23_03,2021-10-22_01,2020-04-07_01
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 mlxlogscore=526 priorityscore=1501 adultscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxscore=0 clxscore=1015 malwarescore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 spamscore=0 bulkscore=0 phishscore=0 suspectscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2109230001 definitions=main-2110230091
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/_s20VWr2qMPHZBFAr4cSN_sfnGo>
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 14:16:42 -0000

>   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.?

Which is another reason why I propose not putting it in Nomcom's hands.

Jane at Example, Inc. has been an AD for three terms, and Bob and Sue are potential AD's also from Example Inc.  Bob has nobody else standing in competition and Sue has never been an AD.  What should they choose?  Suppose Jane is also unopposed?