Re: SUMMARY: should there be term limits?

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Joel and all,

  Joel you make a very well reasoned but flawed argument IMHO.
(See more below)

Joel M. Halpern wrote:

> I do not consider that the 6 year suggestion is a useful value.  As far as
> I can tell, in this regard (limiting terms / introducing turnover) the
> nominating committees have generally achieved a reasonable level (offending
> some people one way or the other most years.)
>
> 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.

  But are the mistakes that are made corrected, in and expedient manner?

>  A legitimate review of their
> result is helpful to the community, not a criticism of their work.

  Constructive criticism is always useful and usually helpful...
Milk toast reviews are many times glossed over or just
ignored...

>
> 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".

  Here is where the fallacy of not having term limits.  It is more likely as
history has shown, that after a time, incumbents begin to get stale
or so set in their positions that meaningful change that is both healthy
and constructive is prevented as a result...

>
>
> 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.

  Gratuitous change is not always dangerous.  It sometimes is needed
and healthy...

>  However stagnation, particularly when it is difficult to
> determine problems, is also dangerous.

  Indeed true.

>
> Hence, I come to exactly the opposite conclusions from Marshall:
> I think that term limits are actually a bad idea.

  However your premise of your argument does not lead one to
your conclusion.

>
> 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.

  Good leadership always necessarily follows the community's needs, desires,
and sees to it that they are incorporated and implemented.

>
>
> 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>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.elistx.com/subscribe>

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208