Re: [Gendispatch] draft-rsalz-termlimits

"Scott O. Bradner" <sob@sobco.com> Sun, 24 October 2021 21:38 UTC

Return-Path: <sob@sobco.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 53E6E3A0953 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 Oct 2021 14:38:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.917
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.917 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, PDS_RDNS_DYNAMIC_FP=0.001, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.982, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 c9Q5NaDaYzqy for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 Oct 2021 14:38:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sobco.sobco.com (173-166-5-71-newengland.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [173.166.5.71]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A3503A0952 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 24 Oct 2021 14:38:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.50.224] (173-166-5-67-newengland.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [173.166.5.67]) by sobco.sobco.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 85BC1C202A3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 24 Oct 2021 17:38:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Scott O. Bradner" <sob@sobco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.7\))
Subject: Re: [Gendispatch] draft-rsalz-termlimits
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2021 17:38:00 -0400
References: <394BBA1E-FA83-4E80-A143-BE3F0764DCDA@tzi.org> <F2D8B2B0-1005-424F-9984-3AC6F951E02F@eggert.org> <CDD17BF9-BBF6-413F-80A6-2928995807C1@akamai.com> <4506E7DA9EF80C64C6AE9432@PSB> <C3ECF081-E47E-4E2B-B17F-F5D39111B114@akamai.com>
To: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <C3ECF081-E47E-4E2B-B17F-F5D39111B114@akamai.com>
Message-Id: <9B222884-0D9D-41A0-9747-3ABC6D3AFB8A@sobco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.7)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/aKINi7pPNX71GwkCpOKOp4tKOvk>
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: Sun, 24 Oct 2021 21:38:08 -0000

imo - this path is only useful if we can accurately predict the future

I’d rather leave the nomcom with the flexibility to deal with the reality of the moment

& back to the original proposal - imo - term limits are a good way to get rid of rotten wood at the
expense of good wood - again, I’d rather let the nomcom decide

and, as others have said, the nomcom’s job is hard enough, making it even harder by
removing flexibility seems like a bad idea

Scott who has sometimes wondered what was on a noncom’s mind after seeing the choices made but
would still not like to overly constrain the team that tries to do the job

> On Oct 23, 2021, at 11:52 AM, Salz, Rich <rsalz=40akamai.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> My proposal takes the hard decision-making out of Nomcom's hands, and puts it into the IETF community.
>