RE: NOMCOM term limits... Re: Now there seems to be lack ofcommunicaiton here...

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



I don't see any issue with NOMCON term limits.

The question to ask is why is there a NOMCON at all. Why not do what every other major professional body does and hold elections with the electorate being defined in the same way that NOMCON membership is?

I am not aware that this procedure has caused significant problems in the IEEE or the ABA. Those are also volunteer organizations.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: todd glassey [mailto:tglassey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 9:11 AM
> To: Bill Fenner; ietf@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: NOMCOM term limits... Re: Now there seems to be 
> lack ofcommunicaiton here...
> 
> I originally said two...and would prefer that.
> 
> What I am saying is that there should be a total of two or 
> three instances as a NOMCOM candidate and that is a much 
> different statement than figuring who is in office now and 
> who is eligible...As to what it prevents-career Internet 
> Standards jockey's.
> 
> And since the purpose is to keep the IETF honest, I want the 
> same term limits for any and all IETF positions, including 
> the TRUST as well.
> 
> By the way - has anyone seen a Business Plan for the TRUST 
> and what it is supposed to do? I don't mean some fictional 
> set of ideas - I mean the business plan. I want to see 
> exactly what the Trust is responsible for and how its to be measured,
> 
> Todd
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bill Fenner" <fenner@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: "todd glassey" <tglassey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "IETF-Discussion" <>
> Sent: Monday, September 04, 2006 7:04 PM
> Subject: Re: NOMCOM term limits... Re: Now there seems to be 
> lack of communicaiton here...
> 
> 
> > On 9/4/06, todd glassey <tglassey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > Its time to talk about term limits for NOMCOM 
> appointments. Two or maybe
> > > three terms at most are enough.
> >
> > Todd,
> >
> >   Given that there are no standing IESG appointees that have served
> > for three terms, what exactly would making such a rule change?
> >
> > Arkko, Jari     0.2
> > Callon, Ross     0.2
> > Carpenter, Brian        0.7
> > Dusseault, Lisa         0.2
> > Eggert, Lars    0.2
> > Fenner, Bill    2.5
> > Hardie, Ted     1.7
> > Hartman, Sam    0.8
> > Housley, Russ   1.7
> > Jennings, Cullen        0.2
> > Kessens, David  1.3
> > Peterson, Jon   1.7
> > Romascanu, Dan  0.2
> > Townsley, Mark  0.7
> > Westerlund, Magnus      0.2
> >
> > (This is "AD" and "number of terms served", where "numbers of terms
> > served" is counted by adding up the number of IETFs the AD is listed
> > under at http://www.ietf.org/iesg_mem.html and dividing by 6)
> >
> >   Bill
> >
> > [to be fair, 2 of the above positions didn't exist until 
> their holders
> > were appointed 0.2 terms ago]
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@xxxxxxxx
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> 
> 

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]