On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 05:10:16PM +0000, John Levine wrote: > In article <20190325155548.GQ4211@localhost> you write: > >Imagine a worse situation where some of the participants believe a > >recall is in order, but none of them are NomCom-eligible. To my > >knowledge we've not reached that situation yet, so it seems academic, > >but it's better to know how to deal with such a situation before it > >arises. > > If I had to rank this on the list of threats the IETF needs to deal > with, it would be far, far, from the top. Our time is not unlimited I don't disagree. If there were to be an effort to review NomCom eligibility, and/or the recall process, this could be considered (and possibly discarded) as a work item. As I've said, I'd be happy with a loosening of continuing eligibility rules. > and I would rather deal with issues that are more likely to affect our > ability to get work done. For me the top of the list is the ever > greyer haired leadership. The problem isn't that they're doing a bad > job, but that nobody is immortal and it takes quite a while for new > people to absorb enough of the culture to be effective leaders. Turnover rates in leadership are probably not unrelated to turnover rates in "membership". It sounds like we need to attract new participants. > Another issue somewhat related to the empty nomcom one is the general > shift to remote participation and how we preserve the work culture, or > perhaps how we move to one that includes remote participants better > and has perhaps a bit less testosterone. Is the quip about testosterone one about how better to avoid conflict, or about gender ratios? Either way, I don't disagree. Nico --
