James, Now I'm going to need to be a little cynical... --On Wednesday, 27 July, 2005 18:44 -0500 "James M. Polk" <jmpolk@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > How about a NONCOM review situation roughly such as this: > > if there is more than one candidate that can do the AD > position for a particular area, if an active AD is one on the > short list, and if that AD has alraedy severed 2 terms, the > existing AD is not the one chosen for the new term. > > This will cause turnover only when there is an acceptable > replacement as determined by the NONCOM, and not leave a > situation in which there isn't any viable choice. This is actually a no-op. Please remember that there are not, and probably cannot be, any really objective and sufficient criteria for "can do the AD job" or for who is or is not a "desirable candidate". Consequently, an incumbent will _always_ be more qualified than a potential replacement, if only because the incumbent already knows the job and the replacement will need to read in. In addition, an incumbent is always more or less a known quality, while the behavior someone new on the IESG is always uncertain. So that would leave us essentially where we are today. Worse, making a determination that there are additional qualified candidates blows away the notion of evaluating incumbent ADs separately from potential new candidates so that the latter are never "running against" an incumbent, which is a key element of the approach described in the draft. best, john _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf