Re: [Gendispatch] draft-rsalz-termlimits

Lars Eggert <> Sat, 23 October 2021 08:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83CFE3A0DE0 for <>; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 01:21:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iAslcdMbTyng for <>; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 01:21:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 35FCC3A0DE1 for <>; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 01:21:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown [IPv6:2a00:ac00:4000:400:ec02:2904:82cc:fb7f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 27143600CA3; Sat, 23 Oct 2021 11:21:15 +0300 (EEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=dkim; t=1634977276; bh=sslHLWLbSGP8SGPe9fWMsCOr90QUHdtgsvVUjkJcot8=; h=From:Subject:Date:References:Cc:In-Reply-To:To; b=HEpZ0s/8pE5vyCtI5Hlbh3D3fTCWxayuONB5/bziXr7HQByxlHke6iiHG3uJGTqCE 2jYdD3uIAhL9+X0tPDDcr9aAOudJerBx9W+qn4uCAVuje6JNIZF1tNJiUwNwH7mViP ObUIEMQC+wCSYyA7R5FE5L0hp2Je/5pF3RlGXbd4=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Lars Eggert <>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: [Gendispatch] draft-rsalz-termlimits
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2021 11:21:13 +0300
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
Cc: "Salz, Rich" <>, John C Klensin <>, Barry Leiba <>,
In-Reply-To: <>
To: Carsten Bormann <>
X-MailScanner-ID: 27143600CA3.A2503
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
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 08:21:34 -0000


I’m wondering what the opinions are on how a NomCom should weigh the importance of a gap year (or similar concept) against other considerations they have been told to pay attention to, such as no more that two members in a body with the same affiliation, other diversity guidance, etc.?

If we think that additional guidance to the NomComs would be useful, we should probably also give them some idea of how to weigh it against other guidance we already gave them?


Sent from a mobile device; please excuse typos.