Joel M. Halpern <joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > My biggest worry is the one piece of structure that has no wiggle room. > As defined, if the Nomcom in phase 1 decides not to reappoint the > incumbent, there is no way to recover if that turns out not to work. I must disagree. This "decision" is never publicized; so it is easily revisited if replacing that individual proves difficult. Further, I do not read the draft as requiring a black-and-white binary judgment on whether to replace an individual: I read it as requiring consideration of how effective an individual is before looking at who's available to replace him/her. I'd like to believe this could lead to non-judgmental discussions between the Nomcom and individuals whose terms are expiring about how the IETF community views their strengths and weaknesses. I don't expect even the individual involved to know whether the Nomcom is expecting to recommend someone else for that position. (This raises the question of how we might preserve some institutional memory of strengths and weaknesses. Alas, I have no good ideas there.) -- John Leslie <john@xxxxxxx> _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf