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

"Joel M. Halpern" <> Thu, 21 October 2021 14:30 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE9913A170D for <>; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 07:30:03 -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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6UV2mZiUmv5a for <>; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 07:29:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E3E5A3A170C for <>; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 07:29:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4HZqd21vt1z1nwbV; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 07:29:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=2.tigertech; t=1634826598; bh=mfKuXgK5vCXlOUI5mp9CJkjgNruYPara0wh7eVP9Dg4=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=fMb7m+gff6DiARrO5tBK0Hf9/Z4IvY06hemwXqbf6qojdFDKNd9v/xNwxjMZw8fAk GXxceKCa9GcBwtD5YFmjtg4C4VPWqG/p1hxb3Qe0M9uALc2o6vv8axiimGSvo9rdun NV0zSQ1W4+aNQIvVifTQ/OwqNIPEsENAWeiCabhg=
X-Quarantine-ID: <aIGW_FlOW5Iu>
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at
Received: from [] ( []) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4HZqd15kKgz1nvgh; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 07:29:57 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 10:29:56 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.2.0
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-rsalz-termlimits-00.txt
Content-Language: en-US
To: "Salz, Rich" <>, "" <>
References: <20211021005426.639E92B1D176@ary.qy> <> <> <> <> <>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 14:30:05 -0000

This seems badly asked as you wrote it.
What you have proposed seems likely to me to make a difficult situation 
worse.  That seems a good reason not to do it.

Trying to come up with cultural means to better encourage good 
candidates is something I would be happy to brainstorm on.  I know that 
many ADs have already taken steps, like encouraging folks to run against 
them, to help with this.
I know that many WG chairs have taken steps like having WG members serve 
as document shepherds to try to boost the pool of people with suitable 
experience to be WG chairs and ADs.
I know that most nomcoms already have a bias for IESG and IAB to be 
questioning of folks running for third terms, and very skeptical of 
folks running for fourth terms.   Which matches what I understand the 
community wants.

Most of the proposals to reduce work load for IESG members have seemed 
to me likely to cause more problems than they solve.  I do grant that 
work load is part of the dis-incentive for folks running for the IESG.

So no, I do not have good answers.  But strict rules seem the wrong answer.


On 10/21/2021 9:51 AM, Salz, Rich wrote:
>>     Making rules that cause serious problems if the community does nto
>      suddenly provide something that it has failed to provide when pushed in
>      the past seems a recipe for problems
> Maybe.  We don't know.  We haven't tried.
> What's your proposed solution?