Re: DISCUSSION: should there be term limits?

[Robert Elz <kre@munnari.OZ.AU>]

    Date:        Fri, 15 Mar 2002 07:49:44 -0800
    From:        "todd glassey" <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>
    Message-ID:  <000f01c1cc39$08109070$020aff0c@tsg1>

  | Then you need some kind of clean tracking system so that submitters are
  | guarenteed that their materials recieve or are properly vetted as per the
  | IETF process.

Or we need to trust that the random nature of the selection of the
nomcom makes it almost impossible for anyone to manipulate the process
such that comments aren't properly vetted.

While I don't agree with all the appointments the various nomcoms have
made, I also don't believe that there's some grand conspiracy out there
just to manipulate things to defeat my wishes. 

  | One thing that is simple is that the IETF needs some real culpability for
  | what it is and what it does.

About all the IETF does is publish RFCs (it also books some hotel space
three times a year, but I doubt anyone except a few hotel operators cares
a lot about that).   Whether anyone takes any notice of what is in an RFC
is entirely their choice.


  | The ITEF has no mechanism other than the verbal testimony of its Chairs and
  | Secretariate that things are cool and that the rules are all being followed,
  | including the intent of the rules.

And then there are also all the rest of us out there watching, and making
our opinions known whenever necessary.   The IETF management has done lots
of things that I don't much agree with - most times, the rest of the IETF
finds out about it fairly soon after...   Occasionally that has resulted in
things changing, in many cases, it seems that most of the rest of the
community don't agree with me.   That's life.


  | OK - But otherwise would you support term limits if you could not get this
  | passsed?

No, because that wouldn't solve the real problem, in fact, it wouldn't solve
any real problem.

kre