DISCUSSION: TERM LIMITS - Was Re: Final Call: accept incorporated comments

[todd glassey <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Keith Moore" <moore@cs.utk.edu>
To: "Brian E Carpenter" <brian@hursley.ibm.com>
Cc: "Robert Elz" <kre@MUNNARI.OZ.AU>; "James M Galvin"
<galvin+ietf-nomcom@eListX.com>; <ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com>;
<poised@lists.tislabs.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 8:28 PM
Subject: Re: Final Call: accept incorporated comments


> I share Brian's dislike of term limits.  Both IESG nor IAB are
> volunteer jobs that require significant resources.  Few people
> can spare the time to serve more than a few years at one
> of these jobs, and the few that can do so provide valuable
> continuity and

Garbage - lets plot the last 100 or so members of the management tree and
find out

    1)    how many serve in the same or other positions within the IETF,
IESG, IAB, or ISOC, i.e. who have been elected for life. One ofthe PKIX WG
Chairs has been sitting since PKIX was founded - seven years ago.

    2)    how many of those sitting are involved in commentary stating that
the IETF should remain Status Quo -

I think this diligence will be interesting. Especially when it becomes
evident who is most opposed to change.

> community memory.  As for the members that serve
> too long for the good of the community, the nomcom has generally
> been fairly effective at identifying those.
>
> On balance, term limits would do much more harm than good.
> And as for the good they might do, we have better mechanisms
> in place already.

What mechanisms are you referring to?

>
> Keith
>