Re: SUMMARY: should there be term limits?

[Marshall Rose <mrose+internet.ietf.nomcom@dbc.mtview.ca.us>]

> 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.)

ok, where are the statistics to back this up? 

again, keeping in mind that i am not criticizing the incumbancy, i think you will be hard pressed to find any instance where more than 2 ADs didn't return....

if this fits your definition of reasonable, then i guess we have no argument, other than we disagree on the meaning of the word "reasonable".


> 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".

however, as pointed out in my note, there are numerous feedback loops to moderate the behavior of a nomcom. if the confirming body wants to reject the result, they're free to do so, and -- here's the important part -- the current system forces them to coherently explain what the problem is.

if they are persuasive, or if the nomcom isn't all that invested in a particular choice, you get a reset. 
 
 
> 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.

we obviously use different values for the terms "leadership" and "empower". right now, there is a balance. the confirming body can say no. the nomcom can try again with someone else or try again with the same name. if an impasse is reached, i find it presumptious to a priori assume that the confirming body is right and the nomcom is wrong.

if both organizations have the courage of their convictions than they should stick to their guns. in the worst case, which we've never seen (and i think is rather unlikely), the iab or iesg is understaffed for a year. i don't think that's an unusual thing.

in other words, there is no upside to changing the current balance, but there certainly is a downside in that it pretty much allows the confirming body to dictate a slate to the nomcom, without even explaining why. i'll pass on that little slice of hell...

/mtr