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

["Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail]>]

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.

Yours,
Joel

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?
>