Re: SUMMARY: should there be term limits?

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

    Date:        Fri, 29 Mar 2002 21:05:30 -0800
    From:        Marshall Rose <mrose+internet.ietf.nomcom@dbc.mtview.ca.us>
    Message-ID:  
		 <20020329210530.25de0a9d.mrose+internet.ietf.nomcom@dbc.mtview.ca.us>


  | 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".

But that's more or less exactly what you're suggesting (based upon the
IESG of the size it has been over the period).   12 IESG members (approx)
with a 6 year term, that means 2 of them would be replaced every nomcom.
Occasionally more than that, but once you set a term limit, you remove much
of the incentive to remove someone before their limit is reached, unless
they are truly hopeless - that is, a nomcom can just say to itself,
"well, X's term will be up next time anyway, we may as well reappoint
this time, next time there won't be an issue".

I think I'd prefer the status quo, where the turnover rate seems to be
fairly close to what you're aiming to achieve anyway.

I certainly agree that encouraging people into leadership roles is
worth doing - I'd like to find a less prescriptive way to achieve that
however.

kre