Hi all, Is it true true that we suffer from a lack of IESG candidates? I've often heard this claim, but I've been asked by the NOMCOM to comment on list for the part few years & it seemed that there were capable names on the lists (unless they were all ringers). John ==================== The good thing about mobile email is that t9 forces you to be brief. --- original message --- Subject: Re: Complaining about ADs to Nomcom (Re: Voting (again)) Sender: Margaret Wasserman <margaret@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: 05/07/2005 5:43 pm Hi John, At 9:18 AM -0400 5/7/05, John C Klensin wrote: >Whatever the reasons, we don't seem to have enough plausible >candidates to provide reasonable turnover on the IESG (which, >personally, I think would be healthy). What is "reasonable turnover" for the IESG? I haven't been on a nomcom, but (from the outside) most of them seem to start with the assumption that they should not change more than 3 IESG members at a time. If that is considered prudent, then we are talking about a situation where a maximum of 1/4 of the IESG will be intentionally replaced each cycle. Factoring in mid-term resignations and the possibility that the nomcom may occasionally make a poor choice requiring quicker turnover, successful ADs who are willing to continue serving will probably be in-office for an average of 8-10 years (4-5 terms). This seems to match existing practice. What level of turnover do you think would be healthy? And what would be the impacts of having more new ADs each year? Margaret _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf