Well, I am not convinced. *Guidance* to NomCom along these lines would be a fine idea, but a firm rule, IMHO, would over-constrain an already constrained solution. Regards Brian On 21-Oct-21 09:29, John C Klensin wrote: > > > --On Thursday, October 21, 2021 08:32 +1300 Brian E Carpenter > <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Well, this is a bad idea that was repeatedly rejected in the >> past. > > Brian, I believe that hard limits were rejected in the past for > two reasons: > > (i) There will certainly be specific cases for which they are > the wrong answer. We can imagine many such cases. > > (ii) There has been at least a suspicion in the community that > the IESG is opposed to anything that would put additional > constraints on incumbents (e.g., themselves). > >> Why? Because it's always hard to fill all the positions, and >> this would make it harder. > > I suggest there is a different way to look at that. If we have > a position that cannot be filled by someone able, willing, > competent, and with adequate time and resources, a Nomcom would > be doing the community a big favor by not filling it and thereby > forcing a review of whether we need that position, whether the > role that position is supposed to satisfy is correctly defined > for needs at the time or whether some reorganization would serve > us better, whether our ambitions for what should be done are > realistic, and so on. Probably the same principle should apply > when there is only one candidate whom the Nomcom (or other > appointing body) would not consider acceptable if there were any > other choices. > > As a specific example that has come up before, if there is an > area with two ADs and one of those slots cannot be filled, it > should trigger a review of whether that area can get by on one > AD, whether we need the Area at all any more (so that the remain > AD should be charged with winding it down), whether some of the > WGs in the Area should be trimmed, and whether the IESG is in > need of a reorganization. > > Moving forward with a least-bad candidate because it was hard to > recruit people may help patch a problem but I suggest it is bad > for the IETF in the long term. > > And that suggests there is actually value in term limits: if we > know, a year in advance, that a position will be open, it allows > far more time to think about candidates, twist arms, line up > resources, etc., and even whether some of the above thinking > about the organization or the Area or the IETF would be in > order. in addition, telling organizations who support > Nomcom-selected people during their terms that it for a maximum > of two such terms might make it easier to get agreement than if > it is a potential lifetime commitment (assuming, of course, that > organizations are not supporting people for those positions > because of a belief that having people in them brings prestige, > credibility, or power to the company). > > >> If someone is incompetent, NomCom will not reappoint them even >> once, let alone twice. >> >> We all agree that ossification is unwelcome, but artificial >> turnover is not the way to avoid that. > > I think we have seen people who have ossified in place but who > are then selected for an additional term before retiring or > being forced out. I agree that rigid term limits are not the > right solution, but hoping the Nomcom will figure it out may not > be the optimal solution either. > > Finally, the "one term out" rule in Rich's proposal ensures > rotation, not retirement, and there is a difference. Even a > person who has done a great job might benefit from some time in > the community between terms... and the community would almost > certainly benefit from the more recent and closer to bottom-up > perspective on what it takes to get work done in the IETF. > > best, > john >
