--On Monday, October 4, 2021 20:56 +0100 Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> 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. Stephen, Proposed before, including in the direction of IESG-> IAB transfers which you would allow but that I suggest has often not worked out well. The problem is that the two bodies have very different types of responsibilities, authority, and ways of doing work. Some people have made the shift well but many others have treated the IAB as a nice place to retire while remaining a visible part of the leadership, as a body more characterized by individual fiefdoms than one that needs to work together, and/or one that exercises the same level of authority as the IESG is seen as exercising but with a different topic range. IMO at least (having served on both bodies and made the IESG-> IAB transition, albeit long ago), none of those three behaviors are good for the community. There is also a Nomcom-related reason: service on the IESG is not a particularly good basis for evaluating someone for an IAB position or vice versa, especially if they have already held those positions for four or six years. For those reasons and others, forcing someone stepping down (of being removed from) the IESG or IAB to spend some time as an IETF participant doing technical work in the trenches would be a good idea even though I would set N at two or possibly one. Conversely, if any significant harm would be done by having relevant people out of the leadership for a couple of years, we have bigger problems that I hope there is a plan about addressing. best, john
