--On Monday, October 11, 2021 13:24 -0500 Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi, John, > > Just a couple of comments on your comments, which I largely > agree with. I copied the one that seemed most important here, > just so it doesn't get overlooked. > > [2] There is arguably a fundamental conflict when the IESG >> proposes or decides about suggested procedural changes that >> would affect how the IESG works or how its members are >> selected. On the one hand, ADs presumably have more intimate >> familiarity with the issues than anyone else. On the other, >> they volunteered and were selected with assumptions about how >> things work, how (or if) they are held accountable, whether >> it is easy or hard for them to get additional terms if they >> want them, and so on. And the decisions to which that leads >> may or may not be in the best interests of the community and >> the Internet even if they are in the best interests of the >> sitting IESG and people who are very much like them. > I don't disagree, but one other point has come up repeatedly > in my conversations with IESG members (both while serving as > an AD, and while doing something else) - the sitting members > of the IESG have been able to arrange their lives in a way > that allows them to accept a confirmed appointment. If we keep > asking people who don't have a problem with the way things are > now to change the way things are now, that seems > counterintuitive. Indeed. best, john
