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

Mary B <> Wed, 27 October 2021 21:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32F943A154E for <>; Wed, 27 Oct 2021 14:58:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 U_GYtWUQBuKL for <>; Wed, 27 Oct 2021 14:58:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::535]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7C7503A154D for <>; Wed, 27 Oct 2021 14:58:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id g10so16032778edj.1 for <>; Wed, 27 Oct 2021 14:58:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=j811FcCu102Wr4aYg+m2wPlRTnjhPQrfChfIL0+eBAU=; b=lG8i+l6YMU46s2eGYGv3S0ecYG5NaK0mDcTPf5pMB4n7imlwHD4cIoRqOEZKkqb3XG CS74lk17LnSK0Sb+O9r6IkJwMfhCjDcmCBQ++bFjypWC61zS4MHQUPd9YXCoHAxusikC +NUCgUXaglQ2t4o68+pNCN1owS9jZ+gOF58lxDlnYRchSO+WNgjAXK6RdIwjlVXIQAMa PnB7KOoEMWDo0a1oE51K5IJ4wHvyYxKJ5VsOEh8mIwr6UgUTOJeUgTRefIgn2FCUPeNU KkXByKItV+fGj7mEWh0c+sABNlFa+f9/CkEe1b+rpueAljABKBAMzwka4EneZkMyn+8M iXLA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=j811FcCu102Wr4aYg+m2wPlRTnjhPQrfChfIL0+eBAU=; b=zTXDOC/kp3mw1JEF1MhN2egpOdAzZuiveKFq4Y+HSAEIKehY4QU+qEI44vjHXJcuxF JjIrua0JXE+oBYnYITfmNnwehDYlycHuVI4nmbB4Z3LmXdMdQuUsax4xiuXvLm0wokX3 tWbFeCNLHM5n5PSphHXUEvXJEAp8JLjtDH7g223zCCwWcVsIDiqNCgIU0EizLU0sWTaj TNTzlU/8l0uO5o872IcWqeLgueJMx7KNXK6YiKLfqNRkHnMNkcre/NCrdNSPIInxWlVB nmkAKF0xSGptRvx56XgPzxcMqQREuOGomTsIRFpvpe0cmDtGPjvkja9q+ywzfYsy4bac THpg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530QTyUrIjJfCQ9uO6S+w7vQk3WPzILgkD/KZlk07IevWq2Cphpg MRIUioSeQxkOKpX8W29oNFCdZW8TBqnAhZcnQgJWZv1uXqM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw6j91OgsWq9xv3ND/6t13Snb6d9nncxjMlcXGbK4Q2n9Z9vtYc3tYVdAw5cU+CbiN/zmhGmnzpGpF3WEJ/lOI=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:9606:: with SMTP id gb6mr222265ejc.287.1635371883987; Wed, 27 Oct 2021 14:58:03 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Mary B <>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2021 16:57:52 -0500
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-rsalz-termlimits-00.txt
To: "Deen, Glenn (NBCUniversal)" <>
Cc: IETF discussion list <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000038883305cf5cb0ae"
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: Wed, 27 Oct 2021 21:58:11 -0000

On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 4:25 PM Deen, Glenn (NBCUniversal) <> wrote:

> On 10/26/21, 1:22 PM, "ietf on behalf of Mary B" <
> on behalf of> 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.
[MB] So, current IAB is 25% ex-IESG and I did a rough count of IAB members
over the past 20 years and it's been about 30% overall.  And, that number
would be a smaller fraction of the overall number of folks that have been
ADs.  [/MB]

> 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.
[MB] We don't have all the past list of nominees to see how many have been
ex-ADs over time, but you can look at this year's list and see that only 3
of the 14 nominees are ex-ADs.  And, we'd love to get feedback on these
nominees  ;)    [/MB]

> -glenn