[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [ietf-nomcom Home]
Subject: Re: SUMMARY: should there be term limits?
However, I think the fact that the approval bodies have no practical way to say no at all (they currently can not in practice produce the stalemate Marshall suggests) is a bad thing. We have the review there for a reason. One person objected to a stronger review saying roughly ~don't we trust the nomcom?~ The nomcom is a randomly selected set of people. As such, they are people, and can make mistakes. A legitimate review of their result is helpful to the community, not a criticism of their work. In practice, currently, when a review body says "we think you made a mistake" the interactions of various forces (including and possibly principally human nature) mean that the nomcom is extremely unlikely to change its stance after "getting more input".
Claiming "we survived 9 tries, therefore it works" seems a bit odd. The IETF can survive a lot of things. However, it is also worth looking at ways to improve the situation. Yes, gratuitous change is dangerous. However stagnation, particularly when it is difficult to determine problems, is also dangerous.
Hence, I come to exactly the opposite conclusions from Marshall: I think that term limits are actually a bad idea.Some of the other proposed changes, like more empowered negatives from the review body, are probably a good idea. I know this community does not like empowering its leadership. But a bit of leadership can be helpful.
Yours, Joel M. Halpern At 07:08 PM 3/29/02 -0800, Marshall Rose wrote:
i apologize for the length of this note.
a few folks seem to be suggesting lots of changes to a system that
seems to work pretty well.
the fact that the current system doesn't please them, doesn't bother
me one bit.
in fact, i think that the current system doesn't entirely please
anyone, but that the vast majority of us can live with it. that
tells me it's close to optimal.
the purpose of this lengthy note is two-fold: i'm going to try to
movtivate folks not to change a damn thing; then, i'm going to ask
for a change.
at the end, if the decision is that it's better not to screw around
with things, i'm happy to withdraw my proposal.
i urge you to read the following carefully. while it's not as clever
as i like, i hope you will find it convincing...
many thanks,
/mtr
#######
the current system
the existing system isn't perfect, but i claim that it more or less
works just fine. further, i'll claim that many "improvements"
suggested thus far either fix non-problems or cause worse problems
than the ones they solve.
the thing to understand about the existing system is that there are
lots of checks-and-balances to promote things like continuity,
evolution, stability, innovation, candor, and privacy. although in
conflict, all of these serve the good of the community.
in terms of continuity v. evolution: only half of the positions are
up for consideration each year. hence, presumptive arguments for
incumbants are, on their face, irrelevant. the existing system gives
the nomcom considerable flexibility to put someone new in, simply
because there's still someone experienced in the role.
in other words, the downside of change is pretty much minimized.
more important though, it gives the community the ability to grow
mid-level people into senior people. in an earlier note, ted
argued against term limits because people like fred and harold are
far and few between. what was left unsaid is that good people don't
just appear at random, instead they have to be "groomed" by being
given the opportunity to do things. the existing system does just
that. by bringing in new people, you pair them with a more senior
person, and this gives them the opportunity to grow professionally.
in terms of stablity v. innovation: the nomcom doesn't operate in a
vacuum, there are four ex-officio participants who can provide
considerable guidance. so, even if every voting member of the nomcom
is absolutely clueless, the ex-officio's should be able to moderate
their decision processes. further, if any of the ex-officio's
generate too much noise, then the others should be able to deal with
that.
all systems, including the current one, are going to get complaints
about being gamed, spun, or perverted. it's all part of the mix of
having competing interests. what the current systems does is provide
numerous feedback loops to minimize this behavior. besides the four
ex-officio's, you also have the confirming body to provide push
back. can the voting members ignore all this? yes. will they? it
depends on how strongly they feel about the choices that are
available to them. the point here is that there are multiple stages
of review and comment along the way.
some have argued that when the confirming body rejects a candidate,
then this should be treated as the final say on the matter. this
perspective isn't consistent with the philosophy of checks and
balances. if the confirming body rejects someone, the nomcom should
be free to re-think their choice, and, if they feel strongly about
it, then to submit the name again. if this leads to a deadlock, then
the position doesn't get filled -- and frankly, i think that's just
fine. if both sides feel so strongly on the issue that they can't
agree, then the position should go unfilled until they can
agree. and if that means the position goes unfilled for a year, i
applaud them both for acting on the strength of their
convictions. (of course, we all know that it's unlikely to go on for
a year. maybe a month or two. and if it is an entire year, that's
okay, the iesg and iab have operated at less than full strength
before.)
i claim that to give the confirming body an absolute no, effectively
allows the confirming body to ignore the nomcom entirely. the
confirming body has veto power right now, it does have, nor should
it have droit de seigneur.
in terms of candor v. privacy: i'll be honest, the original model i
had for nomcom confidentiality was that an outsider shouldn't even
be able to tell if an existing officer put their name back in the
hat for re-consideration. given the widespread reports of rumors,
counter-rumors, misinformation, disinformation, etc., from the
current cycle, i was hopelessly naive and am now deeply
saddened. perhaps i expect too much from people.
however, i think that candor is important because if someone is
doing a lousy job, i want someone to be able to tell this to the
nomcom, without worrying that this will get out'd and, a week later,
they might end up with that very special someone as their new
boss. further, because you have the four ex-officio's there, any
comment that is seriously twisted will get debunked fairly
easily. again, more feedback loops to stop nonsense.
to sum up: we have managed to survive 9 generations of nomcoms
without having to hire ted olsen or david boies. this is probably a
good thing.
a proposal
one of the thing that surprises me about the way the nomcom works
is how little turnover we get on the iesg. i'm not saying this as a
criticism of the incumbancy, but rather as a concern that if the
iesg gets run over a by a bus, we're in a lot of trouble. the whole
point of putting half the positions up for consideration each year
is to be able to rotate mid-level folks in to give them an
opportunity to become senior folks.
of course, there are a lot of reasons why it may be necessary to
select the incumbant, fine. however, i suspect that a lack of
history between each generation of the nomcom is causing this
behavior. (of course, replacing the nomcom each year is a good
thing; it's just another one of those pesky trade-offs...)
so, here's my proposal:
1. a member of the iesg or iab must not serve for more than six
years without taking a break; and,
2. a break must last at least two years before that person can be
considered for the same body.
i call this the "fred baker precedent", because fred served for six
years as the chair of the ietf and then went to the iab. (maybe he
took a break in between, i'm not sure.)
so, what this means is that once you get put on the iesg, you can be
there for at most six years. after that, you can be selected to go
onto the iab, but you can't come back to the iesg for at least two
years.
so, if someone is a superstar and their six years is up, and if the
nomcom feels that person should still be providing service to the
community, they can select them for the other body.
i suggest that the at-most-6/at-least-2 rule counteracts the lack of
history between generations of the nomcom, whilst not penalizing
people who do good things.
your comments are solicited.
/mtr
#######
----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.elistx.com/subscribe>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [ietf-nomcom Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC