Re: Want to be on the IESG?

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hiyz,

On 04/10/2021 18:04, Salz, Rich wrote:
>> I do agree with Rich's concern about having to stand multiple times
>> and have conversations with management multiple times.
> 
> Thanks.

That can work the other way too though - I think I recall
cases where it was easier for some people to get the mgmt
buy-in 2nd time around. (I was an AD that did encourage
people to stick their names in even if it seemed unlikely
they'd be selected FWIW.)

> 
>> This would be easier if the IESG load was lower. Recent trends in
>> the IESG seem to have gone in the opposite direction.
> 
> Making the AD job smaller has been mentioned, 

Effort was expended in that direction while I was on the
IESG but that effort failed (sadly).

> but there are other
> ways, including adding more Area Directors, splitting the Areas up
> smaller, stopping the semi-automatic renewal of an AD for a second
> term 

I'd be very skeptical that any of the above would turn
out well.

> and probably others.  There are reasons, some of them valid, for
> not doing any of this. But not doing anything is going to lead to
> increasing ossification as we've already seen in the surveys and
> such.  And we know the IETF hates ossification.

Here's one, in case someone wants: impose an N year gap
between memberships of the IESG and IAB except to allow
one transition from IESG to IAB. IOW, when you exit the
IESG or IAB you can't be on the IESG or IAB for N years
(modulo the exception above). That might cause a crisis
in a short enough while, and maybe we need one of those.

Cheers,
S.

> 
>