Re: [Gendispatch] draft-rsalz-termlimits

"Salz, Rich" <> Sat, 23 October 2021 17:26 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 781663A0C3A for <>; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 10:26:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.551
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0g5q2K3AN83b for <>; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 10:26:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2620:100:9001:583::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 81A443A0C3D for <>; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 10:26:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd ( []) by ( with SMTP id 19NCgtsQ005050; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 18:26:16 +0100
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; 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=efOBqPStsCw9kR2b2zHuGoWIzfTUkaBWL+DyypmKqek=; b=kwmBoPo+euvIzJShin0YIW6BSVqbWlwCDehlRy0uWl2CuSyGuLSUJbPQEC2CUKE8vR8U mnu9iYJK+7sij7z556Oh4e3ggKBl6CVqJzozwCI9+ZhNJqg8hdl4zpa0c0SrqRlZHno0 N+e89kGgWMQ5MrmZDne/V84jgVDUlaTXhuOErumgsyDVcjNPOgRuPqloxoIGesWSQLch uyDEZVBofZxvYGedDuUe/Qrs7cTqUrzUK1KPs5NWwC5Mu+a/NzDfWeZCAhqiirVMozRs TerZRLhXLOSvM3vcJlJKNPEQNDMa9eJ2CrGI2aiwmitdgpaPsxkJDxF9oCA9yo4M4PqC Xg==
Received: from prod-mail-ppoint1 ( [] (may be forged)) by with ESMTP id 3bv9na09wf-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Sat, 23 Oct 2021 18:26:16 +0100
Received: from pps.filterd ( []) by ( with SMTP id 19NHIonp002280; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 13:26:15 -0400
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP id 3bvdqyrqpd-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Sat, 23 Oct 2021 13:26:15 -0400
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.23; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 13:26:14 -0400
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1497.023; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 13:26:14 -0400
From: "Salz, Rich" <>
To: John C Klensin <>, Lars Eggert <>
CC: Barry Leiba <>, Carsten Bormann <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [Gendispatch] draft-rsalz-termlimits
Thread-Topic: [Gendispatch] draft-rsalz-termlimits
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2021 17:26:14 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <4506E7DA9EF80C64C6AE9432@PSB> <> <7102767AA0D5C9F679E9B61C@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <7102767AA0D5C9F679E9B61C@PSB>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/16.54.21101001
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <>
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 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 suspectscore=0 mlxlogscore=644 mlxscore=0 spamscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2109230001 definitions=main-2110230109
X-Proofpoint-GUID: i5cT-s1aT1I-j82Ab5Q1nzTZGXpKd9xb
X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: i5cT-s1aT1I-j82Ab5Q1nzTZGXpKd9xb
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:,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 bulkscore=0 clxscore=1015 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 impostorscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=637 priorityscore=1501 spamscore=0 malwarescore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2109230001 definitions=main-2110230109
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: Sat, 23 Oct 2021 17:26:32 -0000

>    (1) I'm concerned about edge cases in which an extra (i.e.,
    third) term would be in the interest of the incumbent and the

All things being considered -- notably the lack of diversity and tendency to entrenchment among the leadership -- I find it hard, if not impossible, to find such an edge case. Surely we can find someone capable of doing the job, and maybe a secondary forcing function is that the job description changes. We'll see.  I find the current situation untenable.  As we used to say in Usenet, "death of the net predicted."

Note that this is a draft, and could be modified if somehow adopted. If the community wants to handle edge cases or exceptions, that's certainly our right and ability.

> I've got a general distrust of trying
    to do things by rigid rules in the IETF.  We've historically
    been much better off delegating responsibility and and authority
    to groups or clusters of people, letting them do their work, and
    then holding them accountable for it.

Sure, I don't disagree.  Except we've talked for years and years about how to change the AD jobs and nothing has happened.  Who is accountable for having mostly the same-old same-old people in leadership, and little diversity?  NomCom changes every year, so it can't be them.  Heck, we don't even have a mechanism for passing on lessons to future NomCom's based on past experiences.

>  The big problem with the
    Nomcom in that regard is that they do whatever they do, their
    internal discussions and the information they base them on are
    largely confidential, and there is no accountability mechanism.
Yes.  It's a black box. To me, the only possible change that will work is to change the inputs; i.e., those are nominated.

> it seems to me that what the proposal does is
    to deprive the Nomcom of the option of making one particular
    type of hard decision while shifting no responsibility for those
    decisions to the community at all (even if it increases the
    pressure on the community to generate more candidates).

The "hard decision" is to pick status quo. That is generally considered to be a safe decision, not hard. Worst-case, nobody is nominated for AD and the position is left open until the situation is fixed. Your draft allows for that IIRC.  You can't pressure a community without a "crisis"  Without a real change, we'll get more of the same. I took the community survey to heart, and I honestly wonder how many years we have left if we don't enact real change.