> 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 > like the idea > of considering incumbents on their own. But I can not find a > way to make > the two-phase system work without severe risk of backing > ourselves into a > corner. Given the '2 terms' limitation described I think that it is not very likely that this would occur. A NOMCON is not very likely to be considering replacing an AD unless their first term gave a very very good reason to do so. The AD has in effect had to screw up in a pretty major way that is not attributed to being new to the job within their first 18 months. The most likely way that would happen is if they were not doing the job. The other advantage of the 2 terms limitation not mentioned so far is that it makes it much more attractive to an employer to have someone become an AD if they know that it is a fixed term commitment than if it is open ended. I can see a real advantage in terms of career development to having a member of my group serve a four year term. An eight year term for a single individual is a rather different matter. I would much rather have two (even three) individuals serve four year terms than have one effectively committed for a life sentence. The change also improves accountability. I think a lot of the problems caused during the 'old boys network' period were due to the perception that the members of the IESG had been permanently promoted to a higher status and that this represented the culmination of their IETF career. The four year time limit means that an AD who e.g. makes unilateral decisions that override WG consensus in unfair ways will eventually be called to account when they return to ordinary status. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf