Discussion has been couched in terms of whether term limits are a good thing. Really, what the discussion should be about is whether limits on the NomCom are a good thing. It's one thing to give the NomCom guidelines, it's another to constrict them. The NomCom is pivotal in IETF "governance" and is also vulnerable to attacks. The NomCom should be defended strongly against people who don't like the way things are going in IETF management. Ideally, "term limits" should be ad hoc, per person, as needed. If you don't like the fact that some AD has been around forever, tell the NomCom. If you believe that competency in the job is just one criterion, and that potential competency should be considered important ... tell the NomCom. That's what they are there for. I'm assuming you're already volunteering to be on it. If there is justification for the "firing" of a long-time AD, well, the AD probably should feel embarrassed. Forcing *all* IESG or IAB members out, even if doing so hurts the IETF and the Internet, to avoid embarrassment of someone who shouldn't be there is just too "politically correct". Those who have left IESG/IAB positions and taken up others have done so because they are capable and want to contribute. The fact that they can do so does not mean it is all right to force them out of positions where they might be even better for the IETF. As for learning the trade, I don't know. IESG/IAB members could have an "apprentice" program from their directorates etc., but as has been said, there is nothing like actually being in it. Certainly, forcing people out at inappropriate times is way off the path of wisdom. In summary, give guidelines and opinions to the NomCom but don't restrict them unless they have too much power. swb _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf