Re: draft-klensin-nomcom-term-00.txt

Spencer,

I haven't fully analyzed the proposal yet, so I will refrain from
substantive comment.

However, in answer to your question, I'm sure the answer is no,
because the two-stage process suggested in the draft will add a
significant number of weeks to the process, and we would almost
certainly have to start about two months earlier. I haven't done
a detailed analysis of the timeline, but I'm pretty sure we
couldn't make it this year. And that's assuming we reached consensus
very rapidly.

     Brian

Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> This draft (available at
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-klensin-nomcom-term-00.txt)
> does a reasonable job of balancing between current-generation leadership 
> continuity and next-generation leadership development.
> 
> I have previously expressed the opinion that an absolute prohibition on 
> four terms of continuous service would be preferable, but the 
> flexibility granted to NOMCOM in this proposal is acceptable (and I 
> could be wrong).
> 
> The current IETF is a better place because of several I* members who 
> have returned to the community - they are providing strong technical 
> leadership, without dots on badges. Honorable retirement after honorable 
> service on IESG or IAB is not a bad thing.
> 
> If I read RFC 3777 correctly, we will be assembling the next NOMCOM very 
> soon ("at least two months before the Third IETF"). So, I'm wondering...
> 
> If there is community consensus that this draft proposes something 
> reasonable, would we give the draft to the incoming NOMCOM as part of 
> their instructions and perform a BCP 93 process experiment?
> 
> Spencer
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> 

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf