Of course, my second sentence is written backwards. Duh. I *really* think that combining them as in the -00 draft, rather than separating them out, somewhat confuses the issue. Brian Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Personal opinion: My take is that there are two main aspects to John's proposal. I think that separating them out, rather than combining them as in the -00 draft, somewhat confuses the issue. 1. Defined criteria for appointee performance, to be objectively evaluated towards the end of their terms. I think this is an excellent idea - just like annual evaluations that most of us have in our day jobs, this would be useful for everybody, including new ADs, incumbents who are reappointed, and incumbents who are not reappointed and want to know why. As I already noted, we can't switch this on from one day to the next - the evaluation criteria have to be set up first, with the evaluations applied later. And the criteria must be fair with respect to the job description and the workload. 2. Strong guidance to the NomCom about how to strike the correct balance between continuity and turnover. I think giving such guidance to NomCom is a good idea on balance. We have running code proof that the weak guidance in RFC 3777 leads to some NomComs going for a lot of turnover and other NomComs going for almost none. I remain against rigid term limits, but guidance that says, basically "you need a good reason *not* to re-appoint a 2 year AD, and you need a good reason to re-appoint a 4+ year AD" seems better than what we have today. The advantage of separating the criteria/evaluation part from the actual nominating/appointing part is that this will avoid contaminating the evaluation with concerns about turnover. It could even be done by a separate team, perhaps. Another advantage is that point 2 is completely compatible with RFC 3777 as written. Whereas point 1 needs quite some work. Brian Richard Draves wrote:[I'm sorry to be joining this discussion late.] I see several different goals in John's draft: 1. Setting guidelines for length of service. 2. Early notification to incumbents. 3. Reducing the nomcom's workload. I think giving the nomcom more guidance about appropriate length of service is a fine thing. (And I tend to agree that service beyond three terms should be unusual.) Having a generally-recognized length of service would help generate candidates to replace a well-regarded AD who has served several terms. I think announcing early decisions regarding incumbents is not good. I think there's great value in looking at the slate of candidates as a whole. I don't like the idea of making a decision about an incumbent without seeing the pool of potential replacements. The goal of simplifying life for the nomcom is laudable, but in fact if an AD incumbent is doing a good job, there are generally very few credible & willing alternatives for the job so it doesn't take many cycles to sort out the situation. So I don't think this proposal would reduce the nomcom's workload. Rich _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf