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?
