On 2021-10-22, at 19:24, Salz, Rich <rsalz=40akamai.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I really wish I had thought to name it "gap year" rather than "term limits.” Much better. Even better when you replace the concept of a mandatory gap year by the general expectation of a gap year. With exceptions. Say, for a reasonably successful IAB member that jumps in for an IESG position for a term because of a personnel crunch — why would that person not return to the IAB when a replacement has been found, e.g. to push forward an IAB project that has languished because of their absence. I think the point is that we need to develop consensus that the nomcom would need to view this as exceptional, not be forced out of that option. Grüße, Carsten
